thought it was appropriate to be ogling and teasing the girl in the first place? Why is it always on the girls and women to cover up, not on the boys and men to behave themselves and act like gentlemen?

She clarified:

I’m the mother of three (soon to be four) boys, and I hope to teach them that no matter WHAT a woman is wearing, it is rude and crass to make comments about her body and make her feel uncomfortable.

This is exactly the right thing to teach boys, and as the mother of six (possibly seven) girls, I’m delighted that some young men are hearing this valuable lesson.

It is, however, exactly the wrong lesson to teach girls. You can’t have girls dressing however they want and expect boys to just be gentlemen. That’s called “putting boys through hell,” and it’s not Christian behavior. Whenever I heard this argument, I think of a busty woman wearing a skin-tight T-shirt with a big arrow and “MY EYES ARE UP HERE” emblazoned across her chest. Let’s not be silly.

Many girls and women underestimate the power they have over men. Even women who are very visually-oriented and who struggle with chastity constantly do not face the struggle that the typical man faces when he turns on the TV or goes to the mall. It’s not impossible for men to train themselves to keep their eyes to themselves (I’ve seen my poor husband almost get whiplash trying to keep custody of the eyes at the beach)—but it’s very, very hard, and takes constant vigilance in this sex-drenched society.

When a woman sees a man who is dressed immodestly, however, it is easier for her to dismiss him, often with a laugh. Sensible women find nothing less attractive than a man who needs to flaunt his stuff all the time. Not so for men: they may know in their hearts and minds that women who show a lot of skin are doing something wrong—but their bodies are more stubborn about the appeal.

And so I agree with one commenter, who said:

Modesty . . is a form of Christian charity.

It is not that we should be embarrassed about our bodies. Bodies are a beautiful gift from God. However, we are living in a time after the fall. We do not want to be a near occasion of sin for someone else. . . If what you are wearing is or might be a stumbling block to someone else, love your neighbor enough not to wear it.

All right. But here’s the tricky part—the “might be a stumbling block.” It’s true that women have a responsibility to dress decently so as not to deliberately provoke lust in men. But they do not have a responsibility to make it impossible for men to lust after them.

Some Catholics think that pretty much any time a man sins against chastity, it’s a woman’s fault. And so we have the ludicrous “pants are for harlots” argument. We have women who think that dressing dowdily is a virtue. We have men working themselves into a righteous froth over a woman in shorts, for instance, as if it’s her fault that he has a thing for legs.

Here’s the problem: first, dressing with utter, lust-proof modesty is literally impossible. There will always be some man somewhere who manages to lust, no matter what you’re wearing (just ask a hijab-wearing rape victim).

Second, an extreme “better safe than sorry” argument can lead to foolish and dangerous attitudes toward women. There is nothing pious about treating women like some kind of pestilent instrument of spiritual warfare, designed to infect innocent men with lustful thoughts by her mere presence. At some point, the woman’s responsibility does end, and the man’s begins. This point varies widely from culture to culture, age to age, region to region—and man to man.

Women are designed by God to be attractive to men, because this attraction leads to all sorts of good things: protective behavior, fidelity, hard work, and babies, not to mention happiness. Our goal isn’t to reject the notion that women are attractive to men, but to channel it in a way that benefits everyone.

So, yes, modest dress is an onus that is put mostly on women —just as self-control is an onus that is put mostly on men. This difference is not because life is unfair or inherently sexist, but because men and women are made differently. Men and women both have the responsibility to contribute to the decency of the world—in their own ways. There’s no sense in pretending there is no difference between them. Just as importantly, there is no sense in pretending the tension will disappear if either men or women just tried harder to be good.

Comments

AMEN to what you said as well. Exactly, exactly, exactly so. And when we think of women, we should remember THE model, who tells us just how priceless women are: Our Lady. She is the best…the best creature in the world is a woman. Men should regard women as priceless jewels, and women should regard themselves so—and dress like it.

Posted by Jonathan on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 12:22 PM (EDT):

Stephen Damian: AMEN!

Following the cash register analogy… another thing to consider is the fact that strip clubs, pornography, and sports illustrated swimsuit magazines exist. In other words, men are willing to pay money to see women’s naked/partially naked bodies. $3, $30, $300… I mean, does a woman’s body really have a price tag? So when women leave their cash registers open, it’s not a certain value of money men are stealing, it’s a priceless jewel. When a woman dresses immodestly, she’s actually valuing herself LESS than a stripper is, because at least strippers charge money for men to see them. What many women don’t realize is that when they dress immodestly, men are robbing them with their eyes… and a woman doesn’t have to be completely naked to be immodest. Skirts above the knees and even an inch of cleavage is already past the line. The truth is that a woman is priceless, she should only reveal herself to a man ready to commit and sacrifice himself for her with a “priceless” ring.

Posted by Stephen Damian on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 7:39 PM (EDT):

Ann,

What happened to you is horrible. Absolutely horrible. But let me ask: Do you think if women dress immodestly that this would make the situation better, or still worse? Do you think it is possible that, just perhaps, men are exposed to so much immodesty that they are desensitized, and that seeing women as objects becomes the norm, even subconsciously so? What I mean is, add to this toxic atmosphere original sin and the fact that most people in the world are not striving for holiness via the Sacraments and sacramentals of the Church, immodesty is like gasoline on a fire. Every Catholic man I know, and I mean good Catholics who try to be holy and believe all the Church teaches, struggle when women dress immodestly. Add another layer—the devil, who will constantly draw a man’s attention to scantily clad women in an effort to get them to sin, and—well, you get the picture. Immodesty makes things much worse and more difficult for everyone. That doesn’t mean men who commit evil acts have an excuse, they don’t. But, if there were a shopkeeper in a not very good area of town who left the cash register open all the time, when he gets robbed no one is surprised. That does not mean he invited it or that bad guys have an excuse. It would, I think it is obvious, make the situation worse though. Fallen human nature shouldn’t get any more help that it already has—men and women all should dress modestly, for the sake of their own dignity and others’, and to sensitize the world again to the fact that people are persons, not objects to be used. Again, dressing immodestly does not bring about anything but desensitization, and then even a modest woman will be seen, by one desensitized, as an object. But the whole situation in the world is Hellish—the only answer is Jesus, and most of the world says “no” to Him. May God protect us all from evil people (and evil angels). The good God bless you, Ann.

Posted by Ann on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 10:07 AM (EDT):

I just wanted to add that I’ve been cat-called too many times to count and was once almost raped by two men, all while dressed in a manner that a trad Catholic briefly mistook for a religious habit! So please, tell me again how men commit sexual sins because women don’t dress modestly enough?

Posted by Robert Kaiser on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 11:00 AM (EDT):

What a completely awesome, well-balanced and, imo, spot on analysis. I could not agree more. Thanks!

Posted by enness on Thursday, Aug 18, 2011 4:40 AM (EDT):

Wow, I have rarely seen anyone so desperate to earn a nice Hawaiian Punch. Not that I am going to be the one to dignify him with it, but it seems bound to happen eventually.

I’m not convinced rape is necessarily a crime of passion just because of the particular weapon involved. Think about it - what better power trip than to make sure another person never feels safe in her (OR HIS, let’s not forget) own body ever again? That’s the special evil of it.

@ Roscoe: have you ever read Games People Play? It talks about exactly what you describe…I feel the Freudian stuff is dated, but it is helpful to realize that no matter how baffling people’s behavior seems, there is just about always some kind of payoff, otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

All of my friends have just started having children and we look around and say ‘remember all of those beautiful puffy/lacy/floral dresses we wore as little ones?’ WHERE DID THEY GO??? How is one supposed to dress young girls today without having to sign them up for Prosti-tots Anonymous?

To tie in with your Pants post, when I was four years old I made the pronouncement that “I am a Lady, and Ladies wear Dresses!” and it was another 5 years before the dreaded article went on my skinny little legs. Then came sports and shorts and now I’m one of those women who manages to make skirts work for them (to be fair, I’ve not yet been blessed with children) - when I do show up wearing pants people gasp in disbelief that I actually have two legs!

And now for the modesty bit. Standing me next to my, for lack of a better word ‘boobalicious’ sister, my mother has told me that she would not bat an eye if I cam home wearing a burqua. It was not until then that I realized I was particularly modest in my dress. I just wore was was comfortable and fun and, well, me! Having thought about it, and having received comments about my choice of dress, I find that, I have no desire for people to think I’m ‘sexy’ or ‘hot’ or whatever. I have no time for that.

In fact, to say something to that effect in passing is probably about the worst thing that a person could say to me. It’s not out of some obsessive need to be modest, it’s about a desire to wear what makes ME Happy and Comfortable. Not to call attention to myself as someone who is only worth how good their butt looks in jeggings. To that effect, I find skirts to be both feminine and pretty! and if a person was to box me in based solely on what I am or am not wearing, beautiful would get them top marks, rather than them telling me how much they want to ‘do me’ because my shorts are too short for their own pockets. Neither of us is going to get anything good out of that exchange, so let’s just avoid it altogether.

Posted by Wedding on Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 12:34 PM (EDT):

It’s summer and unless you never allow your boys to go outside they are going to be exposed to immodest, selfish, lust seeking girls even at the age of 11 who are going to tempt them with the Retailers money machine “sexy” “hot” clothing. So what do you do as parents - first of all - I was told by a priest once, that going to the beach or the pool is a sin because you can’t avoid this kind of lust. I firmly disagree and my family and I are not going to give up going swimming at the beach or our community pool over this disordered situation. I tell my boys that when you go into a store and you see the latest DS in all its upgraded glory - you are not allowed to just steal it and it is not better than the one you have that is in perfectly fine condition. The same goes for the body, everyone has the same stuff and the body has a purpose and the purpose isn’t about “Hot” & “Sexy” ; breast feeding, carrying new life, eating drinking and disposing of what it doesn’t need is the purpose - intimacy is private and between a husband and wife and no matter how a selfish a girl is dressed you don’t have a right to steal, covet or enter into adultery it ain’t your vocation. A body is not about lust, it has a million functions - lust is stealing so remember if you won’t go into Best Buy and steal a computer, you don’t steal by lusting after a total strange person that could be a despicable human being ruining the lives of many around them. The heart and the mind are what you need to be attracted to the body is nothing if a person has a black heart and a disordered mind. Well, that talk has worked we are able to go to the beach and the pool and my boys want nothing to do with the fake presentation of “good!” St. John Bosco had to start his community next to a brothel - he didn’t move - then ended up moving.

Posted by Larry on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 8:39 PM (EDT):

I must agree with one or two other posters, that the individual calling him/herself “logicalcalculus” is simply having fun pushing your buttons and getting a laugh out of the uproar he’s created. After calmly and charitably replying to such a person’s initial post, the best way to deal with them is NOT to deal with them any further. Let him rant and rave while everyone else treats him as though he were invisible and inaudible. He’ll get bored and look elsewhere. Don’t let him get you sputtering with rage—that’s entertainment to him.

Posted by Missy on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 8:35 AM (EDT):

I’m a little late responding to this topic. But it reminded me of a tape series I once heard by Kimberly Hahn on the Proverbs 31 woman. In talking about sex before marriage, she pointed out that when a woman is intimate with a man before marriage, if the relationship does not last,they may be sleeping with another woman’s future husband. The point was to consider all the parties involved, not just the man and woman themselves.In a similar way, women need to be modest not only to protect ourselves from being ogled, or to protect a man from impure thoughts, but also out of respect for our female friends and their marriages. Because we love them, we want their husbands to be looking at them, not us.

Posted by antigon on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 12:24 AM (EDT):

Apologies then, Mr. S (& for the typo too), if surprised to learn a not wholly unique compliment should be thought creepy.

Posted by Bernadette on Wednesday, Jul 6, 2011 7:22 PM (EDT):

Simcha

I am totally a fan of your article. I think that sometimes people lose sight of a good read with honesty in it. Truth is magnanimous. I have thoroughly enjoyed both yours and your husband’s comments. Humor is a necessity, as humor and laughter (in the proper context of course, which this is) is a wonderful to portray truth and go against the evils of society. We are in the world, but we are most certainly not of this world. God bless you (all the readers of this article/comments and your writing and may the Holy Spirit continue to lead your writing!!! Pax!

oh and LC, Jesus still loves you. It’s called magnanimity - being generous in overlooking injury.

Posted by kharking on Wednesday, Jul 6, 2011 1:07 PM (EDT):

It strikes me that the primary issue surrounding modesty is really one of good manners on both sides. To treat others and oneself with respect, to seek to make those around you as comfortable with their best selves as possible and to not draw attention to oneself are the real goals. The precise details of how this plays out will, of course, vary slightly depending on the context and the sensibilities of the person involved. I personally often wear a headcovering at home because it helps me respect myself, my job and my husband. I sometimes remove it when I go out (again, depending on the context) because I believe that it is more modest and polite to not draw attention to myself in the way that covering in my current locale inevitable does. Not everyone needs to do this. If I respect myself in what I wear and how I carry myself and present a simple picture of respectable womanhood, then I have done what kindness and good manners rightly demand. The best example of true modesty is the reference above to a family whose mother and girls always gave the impression of being ladies but the observer could never remember specifically what they were wearing.

Posted by Steve T. on Tuesday, Jul 5, 2011 5:31 PM (EDT):

@Corita, once again we agree. We just (in my opinion) come at the question from different angles. God bless you.

It was so refreshing to discuss this issue with a woman who respects my opinions and responds to them, instead of using PC rhetoric as a club against me.

Posted by Stephen Damian on Tuesday, Jul 5, 2011 11:29 AM (EDT):

Dan,

“...Where in past ages it might have been unseemly for even a non-Christian to be seen in a bikini, now it’s acceptable. So it’s acceptable also for a Christian to wear a maybe a one-piece swimsuit or something; I don’t know. It’s the way people who aren’t interested in following any rules who really get to determine what’s modest and what isn’t. As long as you’re modest relative to them, you’re doing all right…”

Exactly the point I was endeavoring to make—well said! It’s the “see I’m not so bad” syndrome—people watch celebrities doing bad things and think, “I’m not so bad as that” and then start slamming those celebrities when the fact is, we’re all just as bad, or could be (“there but for the grace of God go I”). It seems the same with what people wear these days. Instead of comparing ourselves to the Saints, for example, in our endeavor to be modest, women instead compare themselves to the woman wearing that bikini (while they themselves wear short-shorts) or for us men to the guy wearing shorts, a t-shirt and flip-flops to Mass (while we wear shorts, sneakers and a polo shirt to Mass).

We can look at some Saints of this century to see how they dressed—2 examples: Blessed Piere Giorgio Frassati (suits, modest sporting attire) and Saint Gianna Beretta Molla (dresses, modest sporting attire). Heck, watch the A & E Jeeves and Wooster and you’ll see some very modest but beautiful looking dresses and some awesome suits—clothes not worn merely for Mass or to the office, but because they were modest and looked awesome, not to mention mature; while, again, we walk around in shorts and what-not.

Instead of comparing ourselves to our contemporaries, we should compare ourselves to these recent Saints and to how our grandparents dressed.

Posted by bob cratchit on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 9:50 PM (EDT):

@Mr. Simcha, et al

Hear, hear!

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 8:48 PM (EDT):

@antigon

“And tho it seems Mr. S has noticed, presumably he won’t mind should his confreres observe how strikingly gorgeous his bride so often is, not least in those dustily sardonic photos she occasionnaly sneaks out to terrify the rabbity, & delight (& intrigue!) the rest of us.”

I do mind guys like you saying creepy things about my wife in a public forum.

Posted by Dan on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 7:58 PM (EDT):

I know! I have an idea no one’s said before. Everything in modesty is apparently relative if the feminists on here are right, and nobody seems to want to dispute that—unless somebody knows of some objective standard of dressing not subject to time or fashion set forth by the Church. So when the standards are loosened among non-Christians, the standards are similarly loosened for Christians because everything in modesty is contexual, right? Where in past ages it might have been unseemly for even a non-Christian to be seen in a bikini, now it’s acceptable. So it’s acceptable also for a Christian to wear a maybe a one-piece swimsuit or something; I don’t know. It’s the way people who aren’t interested in following any rules who really get to determine what’s modest and what isn’t. As long as you’re modest relative to them, you’re doing all right. Solved! now we can put this issue to rest.

Posted by Kristie on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 7:56 PM (EDT):

I loved the article, so sensible and balanced. I read many of the comments and to my dismay they devolved rapidly by engaging LC who is clearly stimulated by the topic, but not moved toward the center. If we are talking about charity, then perhaps recalling these old adages might help us all respect each other more….if you can’t say something nice…or my parents’ favorite: don’t reduce yourself to his level. Otherwise it really shows how little we believe in the power of prayer and how much we believe in the power of persuasion.

Posted by antigon on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 7:49 PM (EDT):

Just perused the comments, including a few from some brute who likes to insult his betters when hiding in internet bowels - a practice indeed rabbity since if done in the open air with men in the vicinity, he’d be properly horsewhipped.

Meantime, despite its dominating tendencies, like all sin, lust qua lust is a small thing - really a kind of no-thing.

Beauty one of its opposites of course, not least as found in the soft voice, wise eye, graceful wrist, ah, but such a list, of that sex that didn’t flee (tho they dragged John along), when an Innocent was killed.

The complexity of it all is most interesting to be sure, & seems always so to have been: but not least is the fine privilege granted our side, to be able to savor feminine beauty as men, especially when no-things aren’t devouring the capacity.

And tho it seems Mr. S has noticed, presumably he won’t mind should his confreres observe how strikingly gorgeous his bride so often is, not least in those dustily sardonic photos she occasionnaly sneaks out to terrify the rabbity, & delight (& intrigue!) the rest of us.

Posted by Stephen Damian on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 12:18 PM (EDT):

Pretty good article, but for two things:

1) Any man seeing a pretty woman in shorts is going to have a tough time. There’s no man that’s “only” attracted to legs or “only” attracted to long hair. Any man will be attracted to pretty legs, and will have to fight to keep his eyes somewhere else. So, for our sake—wear a dress, that goes at least down to your knees. I mean really, women HAVE to wear shorts? [As for bathing suits, since some might object that women wear those, too, and what else would they wear, all I know is this—when at the pool/beach I am so focused on making sure my 4 kids are safe that my eyes have no time to be anywhere else. But I wouldn’t go to the pool or beach by myself or only with my wife. For most men it’s a near occasion of serious sin. Other wise I have no answer—the pool/beach may be one of those times there is simply nothing much to be done (but avoid it if need be).
2) No one can hide themselves completely, to be sure. But I think there’s a lot more that can be done. What I often hear from women (and good Catholic women) is that “such and such is the style though” or women just don’t always wear dresses these days,” “sometimes you just need something easy to put on quickly.” Excuses. The culture is very good at pushing things on us and, in a real sense, brainwashing us into thinking certain things are OK; or else some things seem OK merely by comparison to clothing even more immodest (for example, shorts aren’t too bad compared to a bikini).

The fact is, we’re more susceptible to immodest dress and behavior than we realize, more so than dry hay is to fire (see Dom Scupoli’s book The Spiritual Combat, a book read by St. Francis De Sales for 15 years, at least). It doesn’t take much. St. Padre Pio was upset when women walked into the church in a sleeveless dress, considering it immodest.

Anyway, that’s my two-cents. Again, a pretty good article otherwise, and I thank you for it.

Posted by Mary cracraft on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 12:08 AM (EDT):

sorry—darn iPhone—“completely” disagree I meant

Posted by Mary cracraft on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 12:05 AM (EDT):

Hi Confused Catholic, u r confused again :) I did not make the comment u attribute to me—and frankly I competent disagree with and think it is a ridiculous one.

Posted by You all are suckers on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 7:54 PM (EDT):

I cannot believe you are taking logicalcalculus (or whatever) seriously.

This character, if you will, has been generated to stir up dust. “He” accidentally posted earlier as someone else, arguing against **himself**.

Geez!

Posted by Dan on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 5:44 PM (EDT):

Deirdre Mundy’s trying too hard. Let Simcha be the Simcha.

Maybe your husband was acting baffled to fend off a long conversation or something. I don’t know. But, unless the only pants he’s ever seen are big and bagged-out, oil-stained farm jeans, he wasn’t saying the whole truth.

Posted by confusedcatholic on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 5:19 PM (EDT):

@Mary cracraft “If a boy has been raised to see women only in big baggy denim jumpers, its not my fault that he is turned on by a woman in jeans or a shorter skirt.”

While I can see why you might make that deduction…I wonder. Do you think the guys who were oogling and cracking jokes at the track stars in the article were sheltered homeschoolers?

When men on the street make comments or give undue attention to a woman’s rear in jeans, as in “The Hall Pass” trailer, should we assume they weren’t exposed to such things early enough in life?

Not trying to be snide or anything—-just asking the question. :D
God Bless

Posted by Mary cracraft on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 4:09 PM (EDT):

Plus how much fun is it that we get to hear responses from and dialogue with each other, much less the writer and her Knight in Armor spouse ( I think it’s cool to hear from Mr Simcha). As well I just want to add that somebody on one of these blogs pointed out that disagreement doesn’t equate to “meanness,” and that many of us aren’t used nowadays to true argumentation and take personal offense at legitimate disagreement and commentary. This is at least worth thinking about (I buy it!).

Posted by Mary cracraft on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 4:02 PM (EDT):

Sorry for the typos-I totally blame my tiny iPhone :)

Posted by Mary cracraft on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 3:59 PM (EDT):

I think this forum is more akin to a family argument or discussion, and its my opinion (and I was once a reporter and editor….whether that matters I don’t know…) that the discussions and commentary in both Simcha’s blogs on modesty gave all been legitimate and well within the Pale. I theorize that once Simcha is done with her article, she mentally/emotionally steps back into her non- author shoes and respondsore as simply Simcha the Catholic Person. And I think that’s not only permissible but fine and great! I enjoy really hearing well reasoned and sharp-witted and humorous comments with a bit less “speaking as the authority figure” to them. Now if the Holy Father or even Archbishop Dolan got as frank and personal it wouldn’t b appropriate bc they’re speaking as official leaders of the Flock and have to bend over backwards not to inject much of the personal into what they say. But that’s one if the jiys if being a laypersons, and also one of our roles—we’re able to speak for ourselves and exchange opinions and expresss truths in a different way than our shepherds.

Posted by Anne on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 10:30 AM (EDT):

That Simcha is a humour writer is something that is appreciated and respected - she uses humour and occasional irreverence with great skill and tact in her writing, which we all agree is brilliant. What has been brought to task is the subsequent degeneration of humour into sarcasm and derision. The word unprofessional was used in one comment: remember that this is not a personal blog. On this page Simche represents NCR. This kind of “bickering”, for want of a better word, is not what one would expect from 1) a mother of many, 2) a senior writer for faith and family magazine, or 3) someone acting in their capacity as correspondent for NCR. I have on a number of occasions wondered if it wasn’t maybe someone posing as Simcha because of the gap between the quality of the article and the tone of the comments. Humour does not have to be sacrificed in the name of charity. Sarcasm however does. Maybe many of you know Simcha on a more personal level and so you understand her and can see beyond certain comments which is great. That is not the case for everybody. For some people looking in from the outside, there’s something that doesn’t add up, and in a professional capacity, Simcha has a responsibility to take that into consideration.

Posted by Kaylan on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:23 AM (EDT):

I agree with Jonathon on the shorts/pants issue. Words on the back-end are just SO not appropriate and immodest. They draw the attention of the eye to that very spot where no one should be concentrating. What is worse when they have this back-end print on children’s attire. It seems to be almost the norm in kids pants today and to me it just speaks “sick, sick, sick”! I mean, who is designing these things for elementary school kids?!

Posted by Kaylan on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:14 AM (EDT):

You said that right about.. “Sensible women find nothing less attractive than a man who needs to flaunt his stuff all the time.” In fact, I think women find men who air morals and good manners extremely appealing (example: think of Special FBI Agent Booth on Bones…all manners, respect for what is right, and is a Catholic according to the show).

The bad boy image is way over hyped by Hollywood, if you ask me.

Posted by Jonathan on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:11 AM (EDT):

“We have men working themselves into a righteous froth over a woman in shorts, for instance, as if it’s her fault that he has a thing for legs.”

Ummmm… This might come as a shock, but nearly EVERY man lusts after women’s legs. NO, shorts are NOT OK… unless they extend to 2” above the knee, they’re not tight, they’re not white (or see-through), they’re not made of sweatpants material (or any other kind of stretchy fabric), and they don’t have rhinestones or words written on your butt.

Simcha, I appreciate you addressing the issue, and I think you’re getting the HEART of this correct. However, I don’t believe women are the best judges of what is modest and what is not. Men, after all, are the ones looking, so it would be really great if some men with pure hearts stood up and spoke the truth! 99% of men can agree on parts of a woman that we lust after. Simcha, legs are definitely on that list.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 6:30 PM (EDT):

Hey guys, I hate to break it to you, but Simcha is a HUMOR WRITER. She is supposed to be funny and sometimes irreverent!!!! That’s her Shtick!

Sigh.

Posted by Anne on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 6:04 PM (EDT):

I agree with Molly and Kelli. The sarcasm from Simcha (and her Mr.)is neither charitable nor mature. It does not encourage people to better themselves which, if I’m not mistaken, is the aim of the original message.

Posted by Anne on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 5:09 PM (EDT):

I agree with Molly and Kelli. The sarcasm that comes from Mrs. and Mr. Simcha is not charitable, nor mature. It does not encourage people to better themselves which is the aim of the original message if I’m not mistaken.

Posted by SCCatholic on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 5:01 PM (EDT):

@ Molly,
Simcha wasn’t trying to stir up an unreasonable debate. Just mentioning modesty tends to do that. She was discussing points addressed by comments to her previous article. Discussing in a more reasonable way than they are usually discussed.

@ Kelli
Hope you won’t let one article and set of comments put you off completely. I’m all for charitable discussions and have commented elsewhere about them. However, when a person comments to different posts under several different names while taking the extreme position, that person isn’t honestly engaging in a discussion and isn’t really interested in a discussion. Can’t feel sorry for him when he gets sarcasm in return.

Posted by Corita on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 3:34 PM (EDT):

@ Steve T., Thank you for reading my comment. Please allow me one more post on the topic. As a traditional, but feminist-sypathizing Catholic woman I wanted to respond to your comment a bout “violence against women” by saying that, of course, violence can certainly be placed on a continuum in which the sheer number of bruises left and bones broken can be counted and thus the violence ranked. However, while I disagree that “all of it is violence” in the same way, I do think that raising boys (and girls) uncritically in mainstrem secular culture is a little like grooming—y which term I mean the process of breaking down boundaries and inculcating a potential victim of sexual abuse.

//

What I mean is that the process of blinding people to “the patriarchy” is slow and takes place over ones whole life. Boys are inducted by advertisements and magazine covers. (So are women, just the messge is heard differently). And of course you don’t have to see it as “patriarchy” to agree that this is true. REplace that term with a more accurate one: culture of objectification, or culture of consumption, and you have the idea, and it is certainly not confined to only how men look at women as matter to be used for ones own gain. Certainly we are all prone to seeing other people as “useful” rather than beings with their own individual will and dignity.

//

One more thing, about date rape, is that I have come to believe that the “evil” of date rape is sometimes just ab out being so immoderate that your thoughts and desires completely drown out the other person completely. I mean, you can be on a date with a predator who planned to rape you all along….or you can be on a date with someone who has some level of personal spiritual laziness and gluttony that (often greased by alcohol) will allow them to convince themselves that whatever they want to do to the body in their grip is just fine, no more questions need be asked, go get that pleasure! Certainly, allowing your own clamorous gluttony to drown out the voice (literal or metaphorical) of the other person, is an evil act. Does it “rank” the same as holding a knife to somebody’s throat and raping him/her? Not really, but in terms of one’s own relationship with the Infinite, it is impossible for us humans to tell for sure. Is it more likely that our sons or daughters might find themselves in the aggressor position of such a gluttonous situation that can lead to date rape, than it is that they will plot to drug and rape somebody? Ab.so.lute.ly.

//

Which is why I think it is so important to put modesty in terms of a larger picture of respect for the dignity of each individual person as a complete being beloved of God, and called to cultivating virtue from the earliest possible age—for the very purpose of honoring that dignity in oneself and others. That lesson, if repeated tenaciously, can be applied across any behavior or situation, any time, and allows us to extricate ourselves from describing the “continuum of evil”, which itself is a temptation to sin.

Posted by E on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:44 PM (EDT):

I feel guilty reading these comments while I should be cleaining my kitchen. However, after grumbling about my husband and being irritaed with his perceived shortcomings, these comboxes sure do a lot in helping me appreciate my husband!!

Posted by Kelli on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:31 PM (EDT):

I agree with Molly. Simcha, I am disappointed, as a first time reader of your blog on such an excellent subject, at your responses, or attacks, on certain commenters. Some are quite unprofessional as a Catholic blogger and unloving as a Christian. As a first time reader, I am highly put off. Peace be with you.

Posted by RosalindaL on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:20 PM (EDT):

Sadly, I had this very conversation with a priest. I commented on a photo of my friend’s daughter. She was dressed very promiscuously with a very immodest posture. My two sons, (19) and (21) are viewing my page daily. They see what I see. I am deeply offended when one of my “friends” posts something that will put my sons or anyone’s sons in an occasion of sin. My comment was “Modesty is the best gift to God.” The response was not from my friend but from a priest who said it was not my place to “Judge” this woman’s daughter. He said that I was worse than the Muslims and should not be so brass in my judgement to this poor girl. His comment was also that it was the man’s responsibility to control his eyes, not the woman’s responsibility. Well, I respectfully disagree!! and, unfortunately, I told him so. I am so disappointed with this type of comment from a priest and in my personal view, it is this type of Kumbaya attitude that has the NightClub scene at Holy Mass every Sunday Morning! Some people would rather offend God and save the feelings of the offenders… My sons have to have blinders on when they enter the church to avoid the sin that sits right in front of them. It’s hurtful and uncharitible of these women. In the end, I sent my friend a video of a young gentleman explaining how an immodest woman affects him and his friends and she thanked me and asked me to pray for her and her daughter. Ultimately, we are our brother’s keeper and must take that seriously.

Posted by Mary S on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:18 PM (EDT):

*kicks dirt* Shucks, I go away for a few days and miss all the fun!
//
I don’t have anything to add to this discussion, I just wanted to gripe about missing all the amazing awesomeness that IS the comments here.

Posted by Steve T. on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 10:55 AM (EDT):

@ Corita:

“I believe that the best way to look at rape is that it is a violent act that can be influenced by a variety of emotions, desires, and circumstances that we tend to want to gloss over in our discomfort with the entire subject.”

Brava. Brava. Magnificent. I agree completely. I merely was objecting to the caricaturization and over-simplification of rape as driven solely by a male need to impose his power on a woman. Exactly as you say, it is “influenced by a variety of emotions, desires, and circumstances.”

And thank you for the differentiation of ““Stranger rape” often gets put into some different category from “date rape” I think, in an acknowledgement that the circumstances can vary as to what is in the heart and mind of the attacker.” All I mean to say is that human beings are complex, and oversimplifying human motivations for evil (or good) acts doesn’t help anyone. In fact, I was bluntly told by my 1990’s Second-Wave feminists that all men are potential rapists, because all men raised in and living in our “patriarchal” society are preprogrammed to keep women in a subjugated status.

“But in the end, [Mr.] Simcha is right it is always about evil.] Now, I agree with that statement, rape is always about evil. But “evil” is far too broad a term to be of any use in understanding the realities of rape. It’s as if a pandemic broke out and we restricted ourselves to using “sick” as the descriptor. “They are sick.” OK, but sick how? The flu? The bubonic plague? The common cold? What? Also, I oppose the use of the word “evil” as the primary descriptor of the motivator(s) for rape since it can, and has been, loaded with whatever meaning the speaker has in mind, which is not necessarily the commonly accepted meaning.

My feminists used the phrase “violence against women” to include anything that might even possibly displease a woman somewhere, sometime. I had furious arguments with them, arguing the position that such misuse of the term diminished the actual crimes against real women who had been violently attacked. I argued that even intentially hurtful words were not comparable to real violence, that a woman overhearing a man refer to her “rack” was in no way comparable to a woman being kidnapped, beaten, and raped. They argued that it was all violence against women, and it all needed to be squashed. Reminded me of “all sin is sin” arguments against venial vs. mortal sin I had with evangelicals.

Posted by Steve T. on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 10:29 AM (EDT):

“I had no inkling of the effect women had on men until I left home and traveled through Europe. Any thoughts on why American men are so not forward? I have my suspicions, but I’d like to get other people’s thoughts.”

@Jordan: Two reasons.
1) Because a substantial number of American women act like whores when on a European trip.
2) Because American media leaves the impression that all Americans are sex-crazed nymphos who will get freaky after “Hello.”

I lived in north-east-central Italy one summer in a small university town, where the only other American was, uh, differently persuaded, so he was off in his own circle. I was fluent in Italian at the time (no one to practice with here, sigh), living with a bunch of Italian guys, and able to pass as native with ease (at least to tourists). It was dispiriting seeing the way that American women on vacation behave.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 10:21 AM (EDT):

We had thunderstorms last night, so I had to turn off the computer, BUT I summarized the whole thread for my husband (who apparently does NOT believe my job ends at age ten, dangit! So much for ‘early retirement!) and he was mostly baffled as to how any man on earth could find pants on a woman more sexy and lust inducing than a nice skirt.

Of course, he’s from the sort of degenerate family where all the women, even in the 40s and 50s, wore jeans when working on the farm or fixing tractors or whatever, because gosh darn it, they were farm people and everyone worked or no one ate.

Seriously, I sometimes think the no-pants-for-women men aren’t trying to dictate modesty, but attractiveness.

Anyway, I just heard thunder, so gotta go again. (Old wiring and I want my hard drive to stay alive.)

Posted by Molly on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 9:14 AM (EDT):

That was “the most disappointingly reasonable… debate”? So you’re taking another stab at it in hopes that readers become unreasonable?

I don’t understand encouraging sarcasm and fighting…

Posted by Howard on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 8:45 AM (EDT):

Are female astronauts strumpets because the space suit includes pants? Would it make them less irresistibly objects of lust if their space suits included hoop skirts over the pants? Does the fact that their heads are covered make the space suit appropriate for Mass in spite of the pants?

What about men astronauts? If they find themselves in trouble while on a space walk and feel the need to pray, do they have to remove their helmets first?

Posted by Mary cracraft on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:13 AM (EDT):

The thing I like a lot about this string is how interested so many are in truly engaging the discussion. Mist of the comments are also pleasantly intelligent, some clever, and in general makes me proud to be a Catholic. Plus I grew in understanding. I enjoy the good writing too, people! Simcha…great job articulating a solid and helpful column. In particular, it should be helpful on fighting scrupulosity and prudishness in women, and perhaps rationalizing in men.
Now…yes….I’m indeed afraid I must bring our unfriend LC back into the discussion. But don’t worry, it’s not to engage him on the issues! I simply want to add yet ANOTHER facet to the many-denominated Being that is, perhaps, LC: You are a Protestant. The evidence:
Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 3:40 PM (EDT):
The Bible commands women to cover their hair in church. Cardinal burke is therefore wrong because the Bible is above him.
This is Protestant “sola scriptura” talk. Therefore, not-so-dear LC, you can’t really expect a bunch of serious Catholics like us to take anything you say seriously. :) But I think you are getting a few prayers.

Posted by Paul Zummo on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:07 AM (EDT):

Man I was on here reading through the comments, procrastinating on that whole going to bed thing, and then see my blog referenced. Thanks someguy. Sadly I think the advice is rarely heeded by those most in need of doing so.

Posted by Corita on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 12:25 AM (EDT):

Jordan: Europe, for all of its “liberal-ness” is extremely protective of bad boy behavior. They are just! too! passionate! to control themselves, in those romance-language countries especially. It’s only been recently when their rape gets into the international news that they are taking a hard look at themselves.

Posted by Corita on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 12:22 AM (EDT):

@Steve, and Simcha:
After some years of working with rapists and victims, and surviving rape myself, I have the following thoughts: I believe that the best way to look at rape is that it is a violent act that can be influenced by a variety of emotions, desires, and circumstances that we tend to want to gloss over in our discomfort with the entire subject.

“Stranger rape” often gets put into some different category from “date rape” I think, in an acknowledgement that the circumstances can vary as to what is in the heart and mind of the attacker. Sometimes lust has been given the throne, placed over acknowledging the human reality of the other. Sometimes the general hatred in the heart of the attacker requires him to punish a woman for doing something to stimulate him in some way. This is, to my mind, self-hatred as much as it is hatred of the other who is not an individual but representative of all women, say. Sometimes an act of rape is specifically calculated to terrorize and subdue; in this it can be an act of intimate violence against a particular woman or against her people, as in war.

But in the end, Simcha is right it is always about evil.

“Logical” offers and exaggerated example of what becomes of the seemingly innocuous attempt to solve all problems of evil by finding some easy explanation for it and then making guidelines to follow so that it NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. The guidelines themselves become the occasion of more sin.

Further, let us work tirelessly with our children to teach them to respect absolutely the human dignity of each person, that it is inviolable. Thus, no matter what we are presented with: tube tops, rude speech, or the chance to relieve some anxiety through anonymous abuse of strangers on the internet, we will have reason and understanding in back of our habits, to refrain.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 12:00 AM (EDT):

My goof: I meant to say, “Nice comment *Some Guy* in response to LC.”

Posted by Howard on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:59 PM (EDT):

Nice comment LC. I’m sad to see that I’m always going to appear crazy on the internet, since long screeds are my super power. Or maybe my kryptonite. One way or the other, it’s hard for me to believe I’ve given an effective answer if it doesn’t involve at least two paragraphs and one enumerated list.

Posted by Some Guy on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:28 PM (EDT):

Logicalculus: “So I was looking for some merciful and nice comments, I suppose. But one never gets niceness from women when talking about immodest dress because of pride. Pride in women is invested in immodesty and when a man goes near the topic, the hatred in women comes out like no other topic. This fact, too, is instructive.”

I find it instructive that you look for merciful and nice comments by telling people they’re going to hell for not wearing hats. May I recommend http://crankycon.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/how-not-to-appear-crazy-on-the-internet/? I think you may find it helpful.

And if not, then perhaps you can realize that since your attempts to control women by claiming to be in charge and telling them how to dress are not working, you should change to the more easily accomplished task of controlling yourself. Your comments on modesty may eventually be appreciated (or at least not discarded out of hand), but not until you man up and realize that we have a responsibility to behave honorably no matter how hard this may be and that this responsibility exist regardless of whether or not women help us out by dressing modestly or walk around half naked, and regardless of whether or not they have an obligation to do so.

Posted by Jordan on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:48 PM (EDT):

I had no inkling of the effect women had on men until I left home and traveled through Europe. Any thoughts on why American men are so not forward? I have my suspicions, but I’d like to get other people’s thoughts.

Posted by Anna on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:31 PM (EDT):

So… you can trust the optional Fatima, but the Bishop is wrong, and man is the head of woman, and above all in dignity and power… so why is the Bishop wrong?

Something doesn’t add up here.

Posted by Rebecca on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:22 PM (EDT):

A problem with overdoing modesty is that it results in a scenario in which a man goes into paroxysms of lust and dies of satyriasis at the mere sight of an ankle…so women have to end up basically chained to Victorian thrones, doing nothing, never riding horses or climbing trees or running or even bending over. No thank you! I have a life to live. I think actually comfort is a good standard, for every day living (for men and women both). Burkhas are not comfortable. Nor are skimpy bikinis. But a well fitting pair of jeans and a nice stretchy tank top, or an elegantly cut dress - you can wear that sort of thing and look nice, and not risk showing too much off or tripping over your own voluminous robes. And this means that some things are still left mysterious…but not too much. If a boy has been raised to see women only in big baggy denim jumpers, its not my fault that he is turned on by a woman in jeans or a shorter skirt. His parents should have prepared him better for the world. Now, if a woman is parading about in nothing but a thong, that’s a different matter entirely (and again, the thong goes against the comfort principle).

Posted by Rebecca on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:14 PM (EDT):

Wow, someone here thinks that before the 20th century women all dressed modestly. What a relief. This means that I can now follow 17th-century standards regarding cleavage and not be damned to hell.

Or else someone hasn’t studied much history, or seen many paintings, or read many novels. Nor does someone realize that private locutions aren’t ex cathedra statements.

Posted by bob cratchit on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 9:59 PM (EDT):

I hate to attempt perspective…but Simcha’s last 2 paragraph’s pretty fairly sums up the entire issue and especially the last, the concept of modesty and self control like a shared responsibility. Thats very good. When Jesus met Mary Magdellan at the public trial, when they all wanted to stone her, I bet she wasn’t dressed very modestly (given the circumstances) and I bet He didn’t lust at her physical beauty. He also didn’t condemn her. So it is possible for men to exercise self control, even in adverse situations. God is pouring out his grace!

Posted by confusedcatholic on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 9:22 PM (EDT):

Thanks for the link. Yes, those remind me of the slacks the women wore in the 30’s or 40’s. Perhaps with a longer sweater or tunic it wouldn’t cause problems…too much. I’m getting the impression a burkha wouldn’t stop some men—but at least it would be making a effort to avoid unwanted attention “back there”.

Anyway, why do all the comments or questions have to be met with insults, suspicion and ad hominem attacks on this site? Couldn’t we just discuss the facts without the personal attacks and meanness? :(

God Bless

Posted by KL on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 9:07 PM (EDT):

@confusedcatholic
I firmly believe you are just playing dumb in order to make a point, but in case you’re serious, here’s the result of a 30-second amazon search:
http://www.amazon.com/Newport-News-Jeanology-Stretch-Misses/dp/B003XUWYUI/ref=sr_1_4?s=apparel&qlEnable=1&ie=UTF8&qid=1309478803&sr=1-4

Posted by confusedcatholic on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 8:37 PM (EDT):

Do they make loose fitting jeans??? I’ve looked around online and I don’t seem to find them. Help anyone? :)

Posted by Bat-Melekh on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 8:11 PM (EDT):

and Mr. Fisher, may I ask what your job is? I think something relating to Psychology or Criminology or etc…? *she asked as she wondered what institution she would be held in now that she has revealed her dark secret that is UNDER CONTROL* :D

Posted by Dan on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 8:05 PM (EDT):

yeah, he’s gotta be David Casson. that’s what i thought too right away.

Posted by CheekyPinkGirl on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 8:03 PM (EDT):

Any time someone pulls out the Fatima card in these modesty discussions, I ignore it because the Church has said over and over and over and over that Fatima and Lourdes and all the rest of them are OPTIONAL and aren’t essential for salvation.

I’d like to ask Mr. Illogical where dressing immodestly has been definitively defined by the Roman Catholic Church as a mortal sin?

Also, has it occurred to anyone else but myself that people can have all kinds of strange fetishes, which could include women who are dressed overly-modest in hijabs or robes or long skirts and veils, etc.? Do the math with Mr. Illogical - he likes to talk about this perhaps because it turns him on. Let’s face it - if you surround yourself with overly-modest women all the time, then that’s all you have to lust after.

Posted by Bat-Melekh on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 7:59 PM (EDT):

and tell me, “logic"calculus: how do I get rid from this lingering sadism that I have? I can’t use your sad excuse: “I’m sorry, the kids were all around me, I had to pull their hair cause I can’t control myself.” or “I cut this frog’s legs alive because this is my nature and I can’t fight it”. All of this is b.s.!! The only 100% effective way to fix it was by understanding how bad it is for the “victims”. I had to look away from my selfish pleasure, towards the wellbeing of the other. Same thing for lust. Only 100% effective way is by changing your heart, not forcing hijab on women! I can’t lock up all the people and animals!!! You can’t veil all women. I control myself (very easily nowadays, thanks to a process called maturation + confession + Christian values), I wish you and other men could control yourselves (with the help of women dressing modestly). The moment you believe hijab is a plausible answer, then locking up your kids is a plausible solution to me!
and ironically, I actually wrote an essay about how the Hijab gives the woman the image of a sexual object, owned by the husband, and lacking any other personality or characteristics. I would send it to you, but sadly it is in french!

Posted by Steve T. on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 7:55 PM (EDT):

By the way, Mr. Simcha, if you are “The Jerk,” your post that begain with Zardoz and covered the Bond movies was outstanding.

Posted by Steve T. on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 7:50 PM (EDT):

“@Christina

Steve said “both power and lust”. Niggling over which is more “primary” would be counter-productive since different men will have different ratios of the vices within them. However, I think it’s clear that lust is involved in some way, if not then he would just beat the woman up (or act out his desire for power in another way).”

THANK YOU. Thank you. Thank you. That’s exactly what I meant. You ACTUALLY read what I said, considered it, and gave your own interpretation of it.

I don’t deny that male motivation for rape generally includes domination over a woman. No question in my mind on that at all. What I object to is the exclusion of lust as a motivating factor, which is absurd, and plays to a political agenda instead of reflecting reality. I am pointing out that both play a role in motivations of a rapist, and the admixture is on a rapist-by-rapist basis.

(My caveat of “generally” is merely to include certain instances of date rape: two drunken horny undergraduates fall naked into bed, engage in foreplay, she passes out, he continues on the same trajectory they were following. She implied consent by her behavior up to the point she passed out. However, at the pivotal moment, she was unable to either give or refuse her consent. He should stop, period. That’s rape to me, no question. My only point in this case is that I very much doubt that the question of power ever enters such a lout’s head at that time.)

Mr. Simcha, you said “Steve, Trix, I cover rapes and other horrors as part of my job. You’re both wrong. It is not about lust. It is about profound evil.”

It is about profound evil in some cases. Not all, not a majority, not a plurality, not even a substantial portion. There just aren’t that many truly profoundly evil people, of either gender, out there. Criminals of all stripes are as human as any of us, and their actions are driven by many varied motivations. None of these motivations are good, but to reduce this range of motivations to a neat category of “profound evil” obscures the truth. Please remember, Hannah Arendt coined the phrase “the banality of evil” to describe Adolf Eichmann, who wasn’t some Mephistopheles in human form—-he was a pathetic little loser of a bureaucrat who shuffled papers and filled out forms, and made it possible for the Reich to mass-murder millions of Jews. And when finally hunted down and brought to justice, he whined that it wasn’t his fault, it was the fault of the bad men in charge, he was just following orders.

That categorization’s not even helpful. If we accept your premise that rape is purely about profound evil, then the logical solution to the rape problem is to mandate execution for rapists, or at least life sentences without the possibility of parole. (I do recognize that my syllogism rests on the assumption that someone that is profoundly evil cannot be reformed, or at least is highly unlikely to reform, but I’m willing to stick my neck out on this one.)

However, I thank you for pointing to an absolute prerequisite necessary to commit as profoundly vile an act as rape: while lust and power play their part, underlying them both is the rapist’s profound disregard for another person. Driven by lust? His “need” to fornicate vastly outweighs her “desire” not to fornicate with him. Driven by power? His “need” to dominate a woman vastly outweighs her “desire” not to be dominated. I doubt these questions even enter the heads of most rapists. Their needs are paramount above all else.

(Mr. Simcha, I understand that you’re drawing your conclusions from your experiences covering rapes and other horrors as part of your job. I’m drawing my conclusions from my experiences growing up near the public housing project that birthed the Wu-Tang Clan, and from the stories my NYC police and DA friends have told me. We could probably swap Hell’s bed time fables. I can illustrate Christina’s point that some men don’t engage in rape, they “just beat the woman up (or act out [their] desire for power in another way)” with stories that involve mutilations or the removal of body parts. I’m saying only to let everyone know that I’m not some suburban commando drawing on his command of “Law and Order.” But then again, this is the Internet. I could be a cocker spaniel, or Paul Krugman.)

Posted by Bat-Melekh on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 7:39 PM (EDT):

@logicalcalculus….if you think the Hijab =modesty…. or Hijab= saintly men… you are VERY, V.E.R.Y. mistaken. I am an arabian Catholic… believe me, my expertise is Islam. You poor guy, you should see what comes from under that veil once the women are on the plane or out of the country… there is NOTHING modest about them!! Nor the men… all the sexual tourism that is sought by Saudi men. It is undeniable proof that the clothes do nothing if the heart is black! I myself would walk around all day in a Carmelite habit if I wouldn’t be ridiculed, but I mean this has nothing to do with the heart! Lustful thoughts are not changed by the dress you wear or see. yes, it helps, but it doesn’t change your heart! I have struggled with many things in life I know that as a fact! Sometimes when I wore my longest dress I had the blackest of souls, and often when I wore short shorts (that I intend to change very soon) I had the best of hearts. I also happen to live with three guys, two of which are 20 something. I don’t know how it goes for you, but I have a brother who can check out a girl like a piece of cake waiting to be eaten (he gets his slaps from me, don’t worry)no matter what she is wearing!
Yes the rabbit stuff was weird!!!
How hard can this debate be: women be modest, men be modest, women have pure thoughts and hearts, men have pure thoughts and hearts (oh look, asking equal things of people, how dare I?) I know guys who can undress a hijab wearing girl with their minds in two seconds (not the favorite group to hang out with), I also know guys who would walk through fire rather than disrespect any girl, even a streetwalker!

Posted by Kitty Katz on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 7:18 PM (EDT):

I would be very interested in what lc’s own mother wore. Females prior to the hippy 70’s never wore ankle length for at least 50 years. Think about what even the most Catholic women wore in the 60s, 50’s, 40’s 30’s… It wasn’t ankle length. It’s easy enough to find public domain photographs of people on the streets from all of those decades -decades that our own mother/grandmothers/great grandmothers lived and they were not wearing ankle length.

Posted by confusedcatholic on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 7:13 PM (EDT):

@Matthew Kennel Finally! Thank you for attempting to create some guidelines which make sense.

I don’t see why this has to be so difficult?

@Mr Simcha Perhaps a few smokes might tone down your hostility. I’m not sure which sin is the greater? The movie was a simple tool to help with discerning some certain aspects of the discussion. Sorry it upset you.

Posted by Matthew Kennel on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 7:04 PM (EDT):

Dear confused,

I think that the general guidance is that unnecessarily tight attire should generally be avoided in regular every day situations (as opposed to, for example, being in a gymnastics contest or working out, remember that modesty has a social component). But, on the part of each person, this is an exercise of conscience. Since conscience is an exercise in judgment based on reason, that means that each person has to judge for him or herself, based on having properly formed his or her conscience (that is, trying to take into account a true knowledge both of the situation and of human nature), what is modest or what is not. This isn’t relativism, but it recognizes that culture plays a part in what is/is not modest, as the CCC citation from above states.

So, for jeans, the answer would not be to avoid them (After all, why would jeans be modest for men and not for girls?), but to use your best judgment for what is and isn’t too tight.

And, for us men, the battle is to fight for self-mastery and against throwing ourselves into the occasion of sin. (Ergo, I agree with what Mr. Simcha said above - DON’T watching the video or those kinds of movies, for heaven’s sake). It is my personal opinion, though, that many of us men have too high of an opinion of ourselves in this and that we can all too easily deceive ourselves.

Posted by Aletheia H. on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 7:01 PM (EDT):

See. The thing is. It makes no sense for a man to say “I won’t respect women until they dress modestly!” just as it makes no sense for a women to say “I won’t dress modestly until men act more chivalrous!” The whole situation just leads to a Mexican standoff.

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 6:53 PM (EDT):

How about you stop watching the video, as it seems to be a near occasion of sin FOR YOU. Other people, who are NOT YOU may not have that problem. Hence, no need for an encyclical on a pants video.

Posted by richard on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 6:34 PM (EDT):

Great posting Simcha.

Posted by Simple Man on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 6:25 PM (EDT):

Wow. I posted before, then came back here to see if there were more posts…. CRAZIE Man! Holy molie!

Clearly we have a sick-o here. Very scary actually. I think Fr. Z. was right on his blog when he mentions Satan out there prowling around like a lion. “Be sober…”

So… ANY…way. Hey Simcha and Mr. S. Nice job - and a lot a hilarious posts. This really is an easy one. Women should be modest in their dress as, yes, men are predisposed to visuals leading to sins of lust. Why would any woman want to make it more difficult for men to be good and to respect them as something other than meat? And, yes, I am saying that the way women and young girls tend to dress today is, largely, pretty ridiculous/clueless.

But, if, as a man, this means to you that you can’t see a woman’s arm or her hair without thoughts of rape, you are clearly a psychopath. Really. Get help. Really. Yes, really. Help…. Now.

No one causes you to sin. You choose sin yourself. Others CAN temp you to sin, yes, but in the end sin is our own responsibility. Bottom line: regardless of the way some tramp parades in front of you, YOU are still responsible for your own eyes and your own actions. No one but you, buddy. The woman will have to answer for her own actions. If you are worried for her soul, you should pray for her. If you have enough wherewithal you should say something. (I said something to a young girl’s mother in the airport the other day. The mother turned bright red and blamed her daughter for her jaw dropping outfit. (Seriously - it was UN-believable - picture dozens of men and boys crashing into tables and tumbling over luggage) So I told her it must be difficult, I saw she was stressed and told her I would say a prayer for them both, blah, blah. The woman seemed to appreciate the whole thing. You never know.)

I had a GREAT confession once up at a Marian Shrine I won’t name. A pious old priest and Marian expert there told me something I will never forget. It is something I have heard and said myself a billion times, but never thought of it before as it relates to sin. “Don’t make excuses for your sin.” Simple, but true.

If you are blaming someone else for your own sin, you have a problem. The Bible tells us that “If your eye causes you to sin pluck it out”. So whether it is your eye or your foot, or your hand or whatever, God does NOT say, if a woman causes you to sin, do harm to HER! God is referring to YOUR OWN body parts. In other words - YOU are your own problem.

Anyway - stick a fork in it. Suffice to say, there are a lot of clueless women who dress inappropriately and, yes, they really do make it more difficult for men to live chaste lives. And yes, there is a theme of many Marian apparitions relating to the death souls face because of sins against purity. So forewarned is forearmed. But it also seems true that there really are complete idiots out there who think that the actions of others gives them a pass to do whatever they want? Think Adam and Eve: Eve “led” Adam to sin. Who got kicked out of the garden: BOTH OF THEM!

Posted by Kate on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 6:16 PM (EDT):

I am sorry about your mom LC. But really, whether you are serious or not, perhaps you need to take a good look around your inner soul and do some housekeeping. I am hoping you are just fooling around because the alternative is not good. You are either 1) mentally unstable 2) under the influence of demons (I would not advise calling yourself Legion in jest) or 3)a Catholic who is spreading false teachings on the intertubes. The CCC is on the side of this article and not on your side with the hijab stuff.

Posted by Mother Superior on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 6:07 PM (EDT):

Simcha: great article. I am a mother of six daughters, and we are the only Catholic homeschoolers in our area. The Evangelical Protestants with whom we often associate LOVE to harshly judge the modesty of others. It’s nice to see clear headed Catholic thinking about this.

LC (AKA the Irish Frog): Thanks for the laughs! I haven’t had that much entertainment on a week day afternoon for some time! Please alert us all when you join the Real World with Real Catholics. It’s nice to know misogyny is still alive and well!!

Posted by Ally on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 6:03 PM (EDT):

LC said: Immodest dress is mortally sinful in women because it cruelly disrespects men who want to to be pure visually and also Sacred Scientific tradition and right reason tell us modesty of dress is more incumbent on women because of the difference I outlined above.

I’m still dying from the phrase “Sacred Scientific tradition”. Who knew there was such a thing?! Thanks, LC! This poor, ignorant, wretchedly immodest trollop learned something today. My entire brain hurts under the weight of the revelation, but I shall endeavor to keep inhaling and exhaling until I can readjust to keeping a thought in my silly head. :D

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 6:02 PM (EDT):

@Logical

I didn’t block you. I don’t care if you rerout your IP Address to keep baiting me, because I know I’m right. Now, if you’d like to go tell my mother and father what a humongous slut/whore/prostitute/floosy/harlot you think their daughter is, I encourage you to do so.

@KL

It is certainly a funny assertion, though rather disturbing if taken to its logical (hehe) conclusion. Not least because my spiritual director is a very funny guy, and believe me, discernment would get a whole heck of a lot more complicated if sense of humor = instant arousal.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:57 PM (EDT):

I live in the UK but I am in ireland till Saturday. My mother passed away when I was 16.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:56 PM (EDT):

I’d just like to make one point about the “man as head, wifely obedience” thing. If you actually do take it seriously, it can bring some real clarity to marriage choices.

For instance, my husband only pulls the wifely obedience card in situations like:

DH: Honey, you have a fever and you’re hallucinating. You need to drink some fluids and get in bed.

Me: (Too Delerious to be logical) No! I’m fine! I just need to finish weeding the back yard! Otherwise the green men will overrun the house and eat the children’s boogers!

DH: You are going to bed and if you’re not better tomorrow, you are going to the doctor!!!

I’d suspect that LC/Legion/David from Ireland (hmmm… wonder what seminary HE was in where he wore a cassock? ) would pull the obedience card out whenever he didn’t get his way. And, thus, a sensible woman would be unlikely to marry him.

But, if you do believe the obedience card exists, it means that you can only marry a man you really, really trust. So, I am a big fan of the whole ‘Obey” thing. Because if you can’t trust your husband with that, you shouldn’t be trusting him with your marriage and your children either!

(Oooh! Forgot the other use of the “obey” card around here. It usually involves contractions that are ‘only’ 3 minutes a part, and we can TOTALLY wait for another hour before going to the hospital dear!!!! Somehow, my husband doesn’t trust women in labor to make considered, rational decisions…..)

Posted by KL on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:54 PM (EDT):

@Christina

Psssst…LC is just looking to get a rise out of you. Don’t bother. Although I do like the assertion that women are immediately sexually aroused by a sense of humor.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:54 PM (EDT):

@christina -

I can unblock easily by rerouting the ip. When I said female nakedness i was not talking about porn - i was talking about the partial nakedness taken as normal.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:54 PM (EDT):

@Logical

No woman asks to be raped. Not by her actions, her clothing, her make-up, or any other part of her. She may make poor decisions in any of these areas, but you cannot conscionably blame a woman for being raped. Like I said before, that a woman is guilty for “getting herself raped” is a misogynist lie.

Posted by Kate on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:52 PM (EDT):

“Circumcision! Vaccinations! Raw milk! Medjugorje! Ron Paul!”

That would make an awesome bumper sticker here in Austin, TX. Most people wouldn’t know about Medjugorje but they would rush home to Google it.

I am pretty sure that LC is being provocative for the heck of it. Ireland’s economy just imploded so he is probably bored, in his undies eating cheese and at his mother’s. Poor soul.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:49 PM (EDT):

@christina

Men’s drives are excited/aroused on sight. On sight - upon visual glimpse. Not by foreplay or fondling or a sense of humor like women- but on sight - so that is why it is true that:

If the woman is immodest, as nearly all mainstrem western women are, the rapist is fully guilty but the woman has also contributed to her own rape. This is obvious.

Posted by J H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:48 PM (EDT):

LC - I did laugh at you, but now I am sorry for you. I believe that you are mentally ill. I think that you should seek professional help before you hurt someone. I mean this in all sincerity. You need help. You have no love for women, humanity or the Church. I have said a Hail Mary for you.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:48 PM (EDT):

@Mrsceecee

I assume that “...the rapist would either have to be on the set of a pornographic film…” is what you’re talking about. I mean the rapist would physically have to be in a place where a pornographic film was being shot to be “just overwhelmed by all the female nakedness and snap” to be surrounded by naked women as logicalcalculus said was the condition under which men commit rape.

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:47 PM (EDT):

You are a loser.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:45 PM (EDT):

I am David. I am legion.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:43 PM (EDT):

@Christina

Okay, David. You are gone, blocked, goodbye. Go see a therapist.

.

To anyone who’s wondering: he just told a woman he’s never met that she’s obviously partially to blame for being raped.

Posted by mrsceecee on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:39 PM (EDT):

@confused Catholic, Today I have an ankle length dress and a cardigan buttoned up to my neck. I still got all that while I was walking down the street to get lunch. Maybe it was my frizzy kinky hair or sexy flip flops, I don’t know. That’s a movie trailer, get over it.

@Christina, “Porn mindset” what does that mean?

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:39 PM (EDT):

“But above all I think he is mostly a troll whom we have been foolishly feeding.”

I know, but it’s more fun than sorting through school papers. All right, I’m tagging out. Woe to all of you. WOE, I say!

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:38 PM (EDT):

@Mighty Mighty

Places like the Arabian Peninsula are very hot. Yet women dress modestly there.

If one boy hits another, his pain is not the other’s fault. If women dress immodestly, the spiritual suffering this inflicts is not the pure man’s fault.

Posted by KL on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:38 PM (EDT):

I, too, suspect logicalcalculus/supremeconscience and David are the same person. But above all I think he is mostly a troll whom we have been foolishly feeding.

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:36 PM (EDT):

A Taco Supreme, I understand stupid when I see it.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:34 PM (EDT):

Women should indeed dress modestly as they are their brothers’ keeper. I think this is why Holy Mary appeared in Lourdes and Fatima just before the 20th century to act as a model. I doubt if very many western women will be saved because the Blessed Jacinta of Fatima said just before she died in Lisbon: “Woe to women wanting in modesty.”

The man is the head of the woman.

these things are true.

Posted by J H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:32 PM (EDT):

And who would have thought that Hillary Clinton would have entered this discussion. Isn’t she famous for making the pant suit fashionable? Amazing. I never, in a zillion, trillion, billion years would have thought that I should emulate Hillary Clinton in any way. Now I see why you like British women. I guess that would also pull Madonna into this discussion too. Is there a full moon?

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:31 PM (EDT):

@Logical

You don’t address my portion of the blame. In your other posts, you are very quick to point out that only immodest women (the vast majority of us, by your own estimation) attract rapists. Are you saying I invited the license my assailant took? And I should mention that he didn’t come looking for me to satisfy his lusts, I was just collateral damage, since he was actually coming to pick up his pre-pubescent daughter.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:29 PM (EDT):

Mr. Simcha, if you had a pure heart and understood impure looks, you would favour the hijab also.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:29 PM (EDT):

Circumcision! Vaccinations! Raw milk! Medjugorje! Ron Paul!

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:28 PM (EDT):

Aw, man, just when I think I’m getting lots of readers, it turns out they’re all the same guy. I think we should all be required to sign in with a full list of alter egos prominently displayed. But maybe the prominent psychological issues on display here are identifier enough. (I still think you’re David, too, by the way.)

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:27 PM (EDT):

Yes I wore a robe as a seminarian.

Posted by Howard on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:27 PM (EDT):

“Waterboarding”

I just thought Mark Shea should get in on the fun, and that word’s likely to attract him. ;-)

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:26 PM (EDT):

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:26 PM (EDT):

@Christina

There are evil men and good men. Good men go golfing and mountaineering sometimes to get away from immodest fashions. Evil men rape. Of course, they have to overpower a woman to satisfy the lust - but the fire of lustful passion is what causes the violence. if it was just about power, he would not rape, just beat you up, like one man beats up another.

Posted by J H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:26 PM (EDT):

Pant suits? You obviously don’t expect women to be rearing children.

Posted by Margaret H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:24 PM (EDT):

Well LC- Jesus wore robes. Definitely no pants. Are you conforming to his standard yet?

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:23 PM (EDT):

And he favors the hijab. What a shock.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:20 PM (EDT):

Okay, I think women should wear classy pant suits with full length coverage of arms and legs. Skirts to the knee are immodest. They should be full length like statues of Our Lady of Lourdes. Since you cannot ride a bike in this attire, a pant suit is better. These new pant suits can be very feminine. Jeans are immodest for obvious reasons. Women should also cover their hair in church and ideally everywhere.

However, since, I am here in Europe, I like young devout Muslim women - there are many in the UK and I think the hijabs is the best of all. About 4 milion Muslim women across Europe wear the hijab. They are in France, Germany, UK. They work as doctors, teachers, journalists. God bless them.

Posted by KL on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:19 PM (EDT):

Is anyone else not shocked that logicalcalculus has revealed he and supremeconscience are the same person? Hard to keep those sockpuppets straight, apparently.

Posted by confusedcatholic on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:19 PM (EDT):

“Movies are fiction. I would rather base my opinions about male-female interactions that I’ve observed in real life.”

True, but this particular scenario plays out in real life all the time, and it’s a much safer way to discuss it when no one is personally involved. That way we can be more objective without hurting feelings.

As I said earlier, I’d would really like to know what your opinion is, because you seem to have a balanced and nuanced approach to this topic, and personally I don’t know what to make of it. Thanks!:)

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:16 PM (EDT):

Logical, did you just out yourself as supremeconscience? I’ll engage when you’re honest.

Posted by SpasticHedgehog on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:16 PM (EDT):

I don’t even.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:13 PM (EDT):

@confusedcatholic: that comment wasn’t from me, it was from my husband (he’s going by “Mr. Simcha” today for some reason). I haven’t watched your clip because it appears to be a movie trailer. Movies are fiction. I would rather base my opinions about male-female interactions that I’ve observed in real life.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:13 PM (EDT):

@Logical

So you’re saying that when I was sexually assaulted, it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the assailant thought he could overpower a sixteen year old girl, and was merely about the fact the I was dressed like a harlot who deserved what she got for enticing a man who would rather have been hiking or golfing? Not even close. Leave aside the fact that he had done this to at least two other girls, both in the same subservient position to him.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:12 PM (EDT):

@Mr. Simcha, please engage with the issues.

@srose ~

You say only men can be priests and women nuns. But men can be religious brothers as well. So it is only fair to have a Popess next to the Pope. Otherwise, you would have to agree with logicalcalculus.

Posted by confusedcatholic on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:11 PM (EDT):

Simcha, No need to be rude. Apparently alot of people do care, which is why you get so many comments when you bring up this topic!hehe…I would just like to find out the truth of the situation.

Can anyone please answer my question?

Posted by J H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:11 PM (EDT):

So… il-logicalcalculus - what kind of immodesty are we talking about here - show the knee with a knee length skirt immodesty or are we talking about clothes that leave nothing up to the imagination? I’ve heard some people say no knees and no elbows showing (which makes riding a bike a supremely modest activity.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:06 PM (EDT):

@confused Catholic

Probably - I know a few men who would turn around to gawk no matter what the woman was wearing. They’re of the porn mindset and see nothing wrong with using women.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:05 PM (EDT):

Christina, you are totally wrong. ‘Psychologists’ have been, since the sixties, the most idiotic bunch ever - with the exception of CBT, most pschological schools of thought are in disrepute eg Jungian, Gestalt, Carl Rogers etc.

You women cannot get your heads around two facts [1] how much more intense, urgent, stronger and visual mens sexual drives are [2] 99% of men have no thought about power at all but just want to get through life - we only seem powerful to you becuase you are little females and you all ascribe to everything manly the word power. most men would prefer to get away from the fashions of western women and go hiking or golfing to get some relief from the visual attrition.

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:03 PM (EDT):

Confidential to Confused: No one cares. Play your passive aggressive game somewhere else.

A Conscience Supreme: People have been ignoring your crazy for good reason.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:03 PM (EDT):

@Christina

I can understand where you’re coming from, but if the motivator was mostly or only lust, then the man would use no more force and cause no more damage thatn was absolutely necessary to achieve penetration. Maybe we shoudl just leave it here and say we don’t really want to delve into the mind of anyone who desires to commit an atrocity like rape.

Posted by Sarah Webber on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:01 PM (EDT):

I apologize ahead of time, but I can’t resist:
http://www.slate.com/id/2298109/
I confess I read Dear Prudence weekly. Often, her advice is helpful.

Posted by srose on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:01 PM (EDT):

supremeconscience: The Pope stands for Christ on earth, and the Church is Christ’s bride- so it is appropriate that the Pope would be a man. Only men can be priests, and only women can be nuns. Women and men are equal, but that does not mean that they have the same roles.

Posted by confusedcatholic on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 5:00 PM (EDT):

Hey Guys! This is my earlier comment: “I’m just wondering, after watching the first 45 secs of this movie trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvqbOPX3wBs—first
If the woman who walked by wore a loose fitting skirt below the knee, would it cause the same problem?”“

I’d really like to know about this because I see it all the time and I don’t know what the answer is. Can anyone help please? Thanks. :)

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:58 PM (EDT):

@Christina

Steve said “both power and lust”. Niggling over which is more “primary” would be counter-productive since different men will have different ratios of the vices within them. However, I think it’s clear that lust is involved in some way, if not then he would just beat the woman up (or act out his desire for power in another way).

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:55 PM (EDT):

@Logical

That is a ridiculous premise. For that to work, the rapist would either have to be on the set of a pornographic film, or every rape victim would have to walk around naked. In addition to that glaring logical fallacy, your argument blames women for being “whores”, and thus, getting what they deserve (rape). This is one of the ultimate misogynist lies about rape, and has been refuted by every person with good sense in this day and age and for decades.

Posted by Quid est Veritas? on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:55 PM (EDT):

Wow. I think that this entire string of comments and comments to the comments was more…amusing…than the original article. I never knew grownups could be so…intensely focused on such a relatively narrow subject. The rules of modesty are really simple:
1 The clothing must be activity appropriate. What you wear to the beach isn’t fit for the grocery store.
2 Nothing that looks like a second skin. No speedos for gentlemen no corset-like T-shirts or hot pants for ladies.
3 Nothing that shows too much skin. In general everything from at least mid thigh to armpit ought to be covered for ladies. For gentlemen, from mid thigh to the natural waist.
4 You don’t have to be frumpy. Looking weird and purposefully unattractive is just as wrong as being immodest. God gave us our bodies in all shapes and sizes. They are to be cared for and tastefully adorned.
5 Modesty has been called the Handmaid of Chastity, so as one of the lesser Virtues it will help you get to Heaven, not totally determine it. Remember gentlemen, in Chaucer’s time the clergy were railing against men who wore tights with nothing underneath. Don’t be too hard on the ladies. They’re trying.

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:54 PM (EDT):

Steve, Trix, I cover rapes and other horrors as part of my job. You’re both wrong. It is not about lust. It is about profound evil.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:52 PM (EDT):

@Steve

Psychologists have actually studied rapists and their motivations, and in their professional opinions, the primary motivator of rape is power. Can lust be involved? Certainly. But even when lust is involved, say if a man lusts after a woman who refuses to have sex with him, if he rapes her, it’s mostly to gain power over her by making her refusal meaningless. If he can have sex with (rape) her after she refuses to have sex with him, then it doesn’t matter what she (or any woman) says to him, because he’s still getting what he wants.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:51 PM (EDT):

Well said Steve T. Rape is where the man is crazed by lust. He does not want any power. He is just overwhelmed by all the female nakedness and snaps. It is like a starving man stealing bread. He can’t handle the provocation any more. It is not about power at all. well said Steve T.

As stated, this is simply not true. This shibboleth was created by Second-Wave feminists who wanted to reduce everything to the slogan “The Personal is Political.”

Male motivations for rape combine both lust and power. And frankly, the bias is toward lust. Unthinking, greedy lust.

I had this argument again and again thoughout the Nineties with feminists in grad school and in my social life. One thought she had put me back in my place with this crushing argument:

“A sixty-year-old woman gets raped. A twelve-year-old girl gets raped. How can you say it’s about lust in these cases? It is about power!”

My response: “That’s the most sexist thing I’ve ever heard. That statement implies a universal standard of beauty that motivates men, and that somehow being too young or too old drops a woman out of that standard.”

In Simcha’s article, she points to “the struggle that the typical man faces when he turns on the TV or goes to the mall.” Why would you conclude that men must struggle to control their sexual urges, but if they act on those urges through the vile meansof rape, their sexual urges somehow disappear or become meaningless, and suddenly, what actually motivates them is their sexist need to impose their power on a woman so as to keep her down?

Men are complex beings, just like women, and reducing their motivations to nothing but unthinking cliches created in the service of an ideology doesn’t help anyone.

Posted by supremeconscience on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:45 PM (EDT):

ince women are equal to men and Logical is wrong about headship, I think there should be a female Pope equal and next to the male Pope. A Pope and Popess team.

Since ‘women are equal to men’ is a divine truth, if a Popess does not stand next to the Pope on St. Peter’s balcony, catholicism must be a false religion because you cannot have a contradiction.

Posted by J H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:42 PM (EDT):

Sara - my husband echoes your sentiments exactly about this Calvinist streak in American Catholicism, particularly among the more traditionalist. We attend the Trad Mass… but often run into exactly the situation that you are describing. It’s sad because it causes a lot more stress in a person’s life than is necessary… but it often allows people to obsess over the little things rather than take care of the larger issues.

Have you heard that country song “I heard that Jesus drank wine, I guess we’d get along just fine… He understands the hard life”. :-)

Posted by confusedcatholic on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:42 PM (EDT):

I’m just wondering, after watching the first 45 secs of this movie trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvqbOPX3wBs—first

If the woman who walked by wore a loose fitting skirt below the knee, would it cause the same problem?

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:40 PM (EDT):

The Bible commands women to cover their hair in church. Cardinal burke is therefore wrong because the Bible is above him.

Posted by supremeconscience on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:38 PM (EDT):

Since women are equal to men and Logical is wrong about headship, I think there should be a female Pope equal and next to the male Pope. A Pope and Popess team.

Since ‘women are equal to men’ is a divine truth, if a Popess does not stand next to the Pope on St. Peter’s balcony, catholicism must be a false religion because you cannot have a contradiction.

Posted by Sarah Webber on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:38 PM (EDT):

So, my daughter at 4 years old would prefer to walk around in her skin. My son, at 7, would prefer to wear a hoodie sweatshirt and long pants, even now, in the dead of summer. Now, I know both of them have sensory integration disorders (and different ones, obviously) but it is amusing, nonetheless.

Posted by KL on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:38 PM (EDT):

Regarding just one of LC’s many false claims, this took approximately 10 seconds of Google to find:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/BurkeOnVeils.jpg

Summary: Cardinal Burke confirms that head coverings are NOT REQUIRED in the Ordinary Form. They are also NOT REQUIRED in the extraordinary form, although they are expected out of respect for the practice prior to VII.

So…wrong and wrong.

Posted by J H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:35 PM (EDT):

We could market them as a kind of bumper sticker. I would if I could get like 5000 on vistaprint for cheap…

Posted by sara on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:35 PM (EDT):

This is a bit of a digression, but….LC is a Beza-inspired Calvinist. Hands down. There are plenty of Catholics (especially in America) who unfortunately maintain what I like to call the “Precisian-Calvinist” take on the Catholic life. It comes down to “God as Law”—this is why we often see a legalistic turn in certain traditional Catholic circles. Scholars speak of this development in early Reformed thought as the “Deuteronomic scheme” (fulfillment of compact with God and obedience to the Law provides justification for the individual.) In other words, reason is left out. (The basic tenet of early Reformed thought is that man’s reason is totally deprived and therefore, God must dominate him in order for him to choose the good—its the old puppet paradigm.) Three cheers for Simcha for simply making the call for “common sense”—a nice rally for reason. Disclaimer: I am a Latin-masser, though I began attending firstly in Europe. After several years we returned to the States and I was shocked to discover this “anti-rational, legalistic Puritan ethos” in almost every Latin-mass parish we visited. Some things are hard to expunge from Protestant-American culture…(ugh!) I think I’ll have another glass of wine…

Posted by J H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:34 PM (EDT):

Maybe we should hand out stickers to women wearing jeans that say “Stop Looking at my butt” and they can place them on the desired spot.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:33 PM (EDT):

I don’t know, neck-strengthening exercises?

.

How do we keep men who get turned on by skirts from looking at women’s butts when they are in skirts? How do we keep men from looking at women’s breasts when they are in T-shirts? How do we keep foot fetishists from looking at women’s feet when they’re in sandals? I could play this game all day.

Posted by confusedcatholic on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:31 PM (EDT):

So how we stop men from looking at women’s butts when they are in jeans?

Posted by J H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:23 PM (EDT):

You’re right, Simcha. It’s just that we shouldn’t generalize that EVERYONE knows how to stand upright. And men in the position that you describe probably can’t do it modestly UNLESS they were wearing skirts. So, I think that maybe your next article should be not only about sola skirtura femina… but sola skirtura omnia!

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:05 PM (EDT):

@JH: More to the point in today’s conversation: What about men who keep their head up their butts?

Posted by J H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:01 PM (EDT):

I have a serious question in regards to the man is the head, woman is the heart scenario. What if the person has an iron lung? Then who’s higher?

Posted by Jen on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 4:00 PM (EDT):

AMEN, Simcha! I have three daughters and I know darn well I can’t just preach this, I have to model it every day. I talk very openly, on purpose, about my choice of clothing sometimes in order to get them thinking about modesty. We’ve had the bikini discussion many times—no way, no how!! Long before they hit puberty, I want it drilled into their heads that they are young ladies, and young ladies are modest and respectful of their bodies.

Posted by mrsceecee on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 3:50 PM (EDT):

Simcha, this was a great post. I love your sense of humor, I’m cracking up at your comments!

Posted by Margaret on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 3:46 PM (EDT):

I can’t tell if I missed it in all the hullabaloo, but did LC ever actually spell out what (in his humble opinion) constitutes modest vs. immodest dress for women? I’m all ears… (any implied rabbit punnery fully intended.)

Posted by Kitty Katz on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 3:43 PM (EDT):

I guess this proves it: There are mother’s basements in Ireland.

Posted by Donna on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 3:39 PM (EDT):

A few years ago, some scientists managed to alter cells from female mice to act like sperm, and produced baby mice with female fathers. The chatter about it focused on the implications if this were done in humans - girls with no male parent and two female ones. No male contribution to the kid’s DNA.
Normally, I find this repugnant, but after I read someone like our friend LC, there’s a part of me that thinks eliminating males from the equation might not be so bad…

As the comedian Larry Miller once said: “If you women could read our minds…you would never stop slapping us.”

And again, refering to women protesting that they also can have lustful thoughts: “You have no idea! It’s the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing it!”

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 3:08 PM (EDT):

All part of my immodest desire to attract attention via clicks. I think you’re getting unnecessarily hung up on what was, after all, a single phrase—relevant, but fleeting. I’m beginning to think you’re obsessed with this issue.

Geez, Todd, I’M not the one who goes there. I’m saying that “why can’t women just try a little harder” DOES lead there.

Posted by Todd on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 2:51 PM (EDT):

You had me till “pants=harlot.” Must we ruin a fine column by going there again? Besides, the four Catholic men who actually believe that are both mentally and aesthetically deficient.

Posted by babs on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 2:34 PM (EDT):

PS: I’m not claiming women are superior to men either. Just thinking that whoa, someone missed the whole Love and Responsibility from JPII.

Posted by babs on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 2:33 PM (EDT):

Men are morally superior to women??? You think you could kiss the Blessed Mother with that mouth???

Posted by jann on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 2:24 PM (EDT):

Simcha,

By the time logicalcalculus is finished verbally and computeral-ly railing against all of us SINFUL women! (oops, the Blessed Virgin Mary is one,too!) your kids will be lunched, “suppered”’ bathed, and in bed again-and you will most likely be in labor with daughter number ??? (go for at least 8 girls-I have 7 sisters-plus 3 bros-what fun!)

I, for one have enough specks and planks and what-such-have-you that I am simply not paying any more attention to him

Posted by MightyMighty on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 2:09 PM (EDT):

FYI, I’m at lettersto.us.

Posted by MightyMighty on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 2:07 PM (EDT):

LC: psychologists believe that sociopaths, people without consciences, are made so because of inadequate nurturing from their mothers. Psychologists believe that the conscience is nourished and kept in existence by the mothers continual corrections, encouragements, etc. Implying that the really high arts get acquired from 12-18 indicates that you haven’t spent much time with children. I’m a teacher, and I know that by 12, the game is over. Your kid knows right from wrong and has an internal moral compass, or he doesn’t. In fact, I would say game over by 8. Obviously one refines and builds throughout all of the years of parenting, including into adulthood. I still rely on my dad for the best advice available. But, I knew deep in my heart by age five that sex was for marriage and that married people’s job was to have families. My parents never mentioned the “s word” until I was much older, but by the time they tried to teach me formally, I had already learned and internalized the worldviews they held. Luckily for me, my parents lived chastely, open to life, etc. So I know firsthand, and then through further observation, that a child’s self-discipline, the foundation of all other strengths, is set very, very early in life. My husband is a dream, but he’s not the one with the strength to sleep-train a baby, or hold firm with a three-year-old 78 times in a row. From my experience, women do better with being “the bad guy” with little kids, and that is what helps them develop even the capacity for the higher nobility you think men posses and share with their children.

I’ve never understood the women as the heart, and the head being physically higher than the body makes men higher argument because: our hearts pump blood. Our heads do our thinking and our feeling, so your metaphor dies as soon as you step outside the culturally-based idiom of considering the heart a center of emotion. I’m fine with my husband being the head, although in real life, women are then the neck: they turn the head where it ought to go.

I think it’s interesting that all of your comments have been really inflammatory and designed to degrade all of the women on this site. Referring to us as evil in our dress,promising us hell, implying that our vocation as wives and mothers is little more than the equivalent of raising livestock, etc., say that you hate certain types of women, etc., but then say, “I try to love women but I cannot tell you how much suffering immodest dress causes. So I was looking for some merciful and nice comments, I suppose. But one never gets niceness from women when talking about immodest dress because of pride. Pride in women is invested in immodesty and when a man goes near the topic, the hatred in women comes out like no other topic. This fact, too, is instructive.”

First of all, you blame women because you have a fallen nature, clearly deeply mired in sins against chastity. You say that women cannot be instructed on modesty because of their pride, but how much more pride is required for a man to decide that someone other than him must be responsible for the suffering his own sins cause? Second of all, from your comments it seems like you want women to dress in flowing robes and veils, else they are immodest and hell-bound. Simcha has powerfully argued before, as has Erin Manning over at “And Sometimes Tea”, that the church does not spell out the actual wardrobe for women, because the church in her wisdom recognizes that modesty is relative to the context. I would agree that there is never a need for shorts with a 1” inseam. But some people do live in places so hot that long robes and veils would produce profound suffering for women. Try wearing your winter coat in July. There is a need for people to adapt their clothing to their environment, culture, and the setting. To argue that this makes most women whores is to prove that you see women as objects; their own health and comfort doesn’t matter, so long as you don’t have to work at all to keep your eyes to yourself. You see them based on how they can serve you (dresses like Mary may have 2,000 years ago? she deserves my respect. Wears pants while chasing after her nine children? She deserves my disrespect, however I may want to dish that out).

I do honestly feel for you, but you are going to be much happier if you accept responsibility for your own chastity. Then you will be able to stop hating half of the world’s population and relying on bizarre ideas to prop up a fragile sense of self. You may even find the wife God has designed for you, but I doubt she’ll have anything to do with someone who objectifies her under the guise of policing her modesty. I will pray for you.

Also, Ireland is not a dump. That you hate one of the most beloved places in the world should indicate to you that you aren’t exactly a “glass half-full” kind of guy, and probably can’t be happy anywhere, unless you make an effort to see things more clearly.

Posted by Audrey on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 2:06 PM (EDT):

SUCH a great article, Simcha! Thank you so much for clearly deciphering this debate once again. :D

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:50 PM (EDT):

Oops, I thought that would get filtered! Well, I’m fired.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:50 PM (EDT):

Isn’t that profanity filter a pisser?

Posted by Mr. Simcha on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:49 PM (EDT):

Rabbit? You look more like an ass.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:49 PM (EDT):

Oh my gosh, Logical, are you David from previous posts? The whole “I was just looking for some kindness” comment just rang a bell.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:45 PM (EDT):

@logical

And you are annoyed that nobody here is buying a word you say. By the way, man as the head of woman applies only in spousal relationships, and was ordained for women to assist men in dying to protect their holiness. Stop trolling Simcha’s blog and have a reliable priest re-read Ephesians with you.

Posted by Kyra on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:42 PM (EDT):

“Up to the beginning of the 20th century all women dressed with the level of modesty that is exhibited by Holy Mary as we see in statues of Our lady of lourdes and our Lady of Fatima.”

No, they didn’t. Ever seen any 17th or 18th century women’s clothing, some of which had nipple-baring necklines? Or, maybe, the Regency, with tight see-through chemise dresses? Or how about the 14th century, with skin-tight very low-cut gowns? Women didn’t even start wearing closed underwear (instead of petticoats) until the mid-19th century. Before that, under those modest dresses? Lots of air. You get contemporary salacious art with pictures of men hiding under women’s skirts, peeking out, and leering. That’s why.

I wouldn’t pick Restoration England as a hallmark of dignity and modesty, just because the ladies wore dresses. Look it up.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:42 PM (EDT):

Sad to say, the Jerk is at work. I can only tremble to think what he will say when he comes home to find that his strumpety wife has spent the afternoon pretending to be fully human. Of course he’s no real man himself—if he were, he’d just like our fluffy friend, furiously tapping insults to strange women with his nimble little paws.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:36 PM (EDT):

BTW, Bunnyman—- you do realize that Aquinas was WRONG on the IC right? because I didn’t see you respond to that….

Also, Sincha, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE… I know you’re all about dignitude over here…. but isn’t this a job for the Jerk?

Posted by Matthew Kennel on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:36 PM (EDT):

@LC, Dear sir, I think that you are a tad too convinced of your answers. A man’s headship consists entirely of this, of service, of dying to self for women and for those under them. A man’s authority is, therefore, only valid if he uses it in imitation of Christ and in obedience to the will of God, and it is NOT absolute, since God has given women freedom as well. Indeed, insofar as a man is self-serving, he has no Christian authority whatsoever.

As Jesus himself said in Mark 10:42-45, “You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:35 PM (EDT):

CCC on modesty: “The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person. “

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm#2522

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:32 PM (EDT):

Simcha,

Since I am a rabbit, I can’t pray.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:31 PM (EDT):

@Christina,

You are right, I think. But wisdom should be pursued as well.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:28 PM (EDT):

@Simcha

Too late? Eh? What do I care? You are just shaken by the fact that you thought the way you dress - assuming you are ‘mainstream’- is acceptable to God. It is not. You are annoyed that you are not the head gender but are lower down. You are annoyed that some think still that women must cover their hair. Your are annoyed because without your immodesty, your social power would drain - especially as you do not have the nicest face.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:28 PM (EDT):

@logical

It is also the case that the church does not proscribe a specific style as modest dress, only that both men and women should be modest.

Also, something is only a sin if you have consent and knowledge. If immodest dress is a grave matter, immodest dress in an ill-informed woman would be a venial sin at best. If you don’t know you’re sinning you are not held culpable.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:28 PM (EDT):

Okay, rabbit man. So did you pray for me? And have you run your theories past a well-educated priest, or are you also the Pope where you live? I don’t have the time to dig up the documents to show that you’re, oh, 100% wrong about everything, because my stupid kids want lunch again. Maybe someone else can do the legwork on this one.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:23 PM (EDT):

@Simcha

Actually, Your latest missive is totally unacceptable.

It is Christian teaching that the man is the head of the woman.

It is the case that western women dress immodestly.

It is the case that the prophecies of Fatima speak of the coming immodest fashions of women in particular.

It is the case that immodest dress is enough for the loss of a woman’s soul.

It is the case that women must cover their hair in Church as a sign of modesty and the headship of men.

This is Christianity and you are in denial of these truths.

Posted by filiusdextris on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:20 PM (EDT):

For those who can read or machine translate Italian - I mentioned earlier a John Paul I fictitious letter on modesty addressed to the mother of Marie Antoinette, empress Teresa of Austria. I found a link for it. http://www.papaluciani.it/illustrissimi/teresaaustria.html

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:19 PM (EDT):

Too late. You’ll always be that Irish rabbit guy to me.

Posted by Matthew Kennel on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:19 PM (EDT):

The explanation for the four beliefs that LC refers to is called original sin! Men are under the influence of original sin, and therefore we degrade responsibility into power.

Also, couldn’t it be that our Savior took flesh as a man because he knew that we were (morally) the weaker gender, and therefore if he could save us, he could save anyone (like Sinatra said, “If I can make it there, I’ll make it anywhere”)?

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:17 PM (EDT):

Simcha:

Rabbit. The Rabbit. I have really freaked you out it seems. Don’t worry. This was just a joke and also a technique to bring rhetoric to a full stop. It clearly worked! I cannot believe you started thinking there might be something…. Yes it is an employment of the grotesque to stun. That’s all. I know it is grotesque. I agree with you about men in speedos, by the way - even when no rabbits are in the vicinity. No rabbits.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:11 PM (EDT):

Deirdre - well I hope I have been of help. At least someone can spot a practical advantage.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:11 PM (EDT):

As a side note, this is becoming a familiar routine: woman writes something about men and women. Man jumps in and makes nasty generalizations about women. Women make fun of him. Man says he was just looking for some kindness, the makes more nasty remarks.

.

Please not that lots of men commented on this topic, and yet somehow they weren’t universally shredded. It was just you. Why not read over your comments and see if they weren’t, perhaps, outrageously offensive? I don’t really see any of the women here showing hatred to you—we’re just making fun of you, because you’re being silly.

Posted by Aletheia H. on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:10 PM (EDT):

I believe that logicalcalculus may be getting all of his top secret info on what millions of christian/catholic men REALLY believe from the radios that the Russian mafia implanted in his gold teeth. Or some other, equally trustworthy source.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:08 PM (EDT):

@LC: If you explain about the rabbit, all is forgiven.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:06 PM (EDT):

Simcha. I love kind Englishwomen. Englishwomen have great kindness towards men. I hate Irishwomen. They are like Americans. Loud and arrogant. [I am from Ireland - it is a dump.] I try to love women but I cannot tell you how much suffering immodest dress causes. So I was looking for some merciful and nice comments, I suppose. But one never gets niceness from women when talking about immodest dress because of pride. Pride in women is invested in immodesty and when a man goes near the topic, the hatred in women comes out like no other topic. This fact, too, is instructive.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 1:00 PM (EDT):

You know LC, you’re right! Because you quoted Aquinas, and, of course, Aquinas is infallible!!! That’s why, when I want to understand the Church’s teaching on the Immaculate Conception, I go straight to Aquinas and bypass all those namby-pamby modernist interpretations!

Though, I think I agree with you on the “Dad totally responsible for all preteens and teens. I am TOTALLY going to make sure I respect my husband in that and turn over all parenting to him after the kids are 10! And if he protests and claims this is a ‘team effort’ or that “they’re your kids too!” I’ll recognize it for the subterfuge it is! Especially with respect to pubescent daughters! :)

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:55 PM (EDT):

Okay, you win, that’s the weirdest thing that anyone has ever said to me, ever.

Posted by jann on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:55 PM (EDT):

Simcha, since logicalcalculus is the boss of all of us who are women, what IS that verse on the tip of my brain…? Oh, yes:

“The Pharisee prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector (and those hussy, pants wearing women!). I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

But the tax collector (pants wearing women) stood at a distance. [They] would not even look up to heaven, but beat [their] breast[s] and said, ‘God, have mercy on us, sinners.’

BTW…Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled!

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:52 PM (EDT):

Okay Simcha. But maybe someone’s pet rabbit thinks I look good in speedos.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:49 PM (EDT):

Lots of men also secretly believe they look good in Speedos, but that doesn’t make it true.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:45 PM (EDT):

To Simcha, Deidre, Christine and anyone else:

Some news for modern educated women: Many millions of catholic/ christian men secretly believe these 4 things.

1…. that the man is the head gender. The woman is the heart. The head is higher than the heart in the human body Man is thus higher in dignity than the woman.

2…Aquinas says: “The male sex is nobler than the female, this is why the Saviour took the male sex”. Elsewhere Aquinas says; “men and women are not absolutely equal…”

3…. that women are almost universally evil in the way they dress.

4… that motherhood is for the early years of a child, say up to 10 years old and consists of caring for the physical well-being of the child and affirming positive emotions. Fatherhood, men secretly believe, is the higher training of the higher faculties from ages 12 - 18 and is not about but affirming and nurturing but about going beyond oneself and stress testing somewhat. Because motherhood is more focused on lower things like bodily care and emotion, whereas fatherhood is about training the child to make soul dominate body, fatherhood is higher and nobler. Hence Jesus said: “Our Father, Who art… as the noblest anthropomorphism.

Now these 4 beliefs are very common in men but… they will never ever say them to women because…. well Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world. Men are much more cunning and deceptive than your pride allows you all to think. hence a man who thinks a woman dresses evilly will say when asked: “You look lovely!” He will smile outside - inside he will depise her.

Posted by Howard on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:40 PM (EDT):

OK, clearly this discussion has achieved enough nuttiness without the injection of college football.

Posted by Matthew Kennel on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:38 PM (EDT):

logicalcalculus: “Therefore boys and men should not respect them until the dress decently and behave with respect towards men.”?????

How does that make any sense at all? Our human dignity comes from being made in God’s image, not from our conduct. I should treat a woman respectfully no matter what she is or is not wearing. The only reason why modesty is an issue is because when women don’t dress modestly, it makes it harder (but not impossible, with God’s grace) to give them the respect they deserve because they’re made in God’s image.

Posted by Aletheia H. on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:34 PM (EDT):

Oh, all right, I’ll feed the trolls.

“Up to the beginning of the 20th century all women dressed with the level of modesty that is exhibited by Holy Mary as we see in statues of Our lady of lourdes and our Lady of Fatima.”

If that were true, what could all those pre-20th century saints and popular preachers possibly have been railing about when they referred to the immodest dress of women in their congregation? In point of fact, objectively immodest fashions such as extremely low cut dresses (for example, one sixteenth century fashion in Venice involved a neckline which deliberately exposed one nipple), transparent fabrics, extremely high heels/platform shoes, and so forth have all come and gone and come again in the history of apparel. Immodest fashions are hardly a problem unique to the modern age.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:31 PM (EDT):

“Therefore boys and men should not respect them until the dress decently and behave with respect towards men.”

Or you can say to the fire “I’ll give you wood when you give me heat!” One of the things that got me rethinking my immodest dress 10 years ago was the *respect* given to me by a gentleman. It made me realize that being a lady didn’t mean no attention - it meant good attention.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:28 PM (EDT):

@Deirdre: only if you’re pregnant.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:27 PM (EDT):

Wow! Simcha Fischer is my conscience! Does this mean I can have a beer before noon? :) PLEASE? It’s a really good local microbrew…....

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:26 PM (EDT):

@logical - btw, thanks for jumping in! This is the debate I signed up for yesterday and never got! :-D

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:25 PM (EDT):

A boy is a being unto his own destiny. He is not some kind of being existing only to ‘respect’ girls and women. Nearly all women do not dress respectably. Therefore boys and men should not respect them until the dress decently and behave with respect towards men.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:25 PM (EDT):

I’m talking about his letter to the Romans where the Romans thought that if the men “looked the part” by being circumcised they would be saved. He spends a whole letter explaining that faith isn’t about this one act, but the obedient of faith.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:24 PM (EDT):

I think you’re ignoring the fact that “lust-inspiring” is not an objective standard. Maybe, in the early days of the 20th century, a woman in khaki pants was perceived as “loose,” or “daring” or “sexually adventurous” and more inclined to arouse lust.

Now, Khaki pants and a polo shirt sends a completely different message.

Meanwhile, long skirts can mean “modest,” but they can also send the message “artsy=-fartsy-free-love-hippy-chick.” It’s the clothes and the attitude.

Yes, some clothes are objectively immodest. BUT the vast majority of western women (well, OK, actually, I’ve never been to CA—so I’m basing this on MIDWESTERN women) actually tend to wear clothes that say things like “I’m a mom running errands.”

ALSO—- from personal experience, “objectively modest” clothes frequently aren’t. Once, my loose long skirt gave my rambunctious toddler a chance to show my undies to the communion line while I was trying to quiet the baby. Recently, I discovered that loose-fitting button down shirts are a good way to show your bra to the congregation. (My 18 month old has suddenly become a button savant—-he unbuttons the shirt of anyone holding him in a swift and stealthy manner.)

Based on my (frequently humiliating) experiences as a mom of 4 young kids, there is NO SUCH THING as an immodesty proof outfit. Oooh! maybe I should start contracepting so my clothes stay put!

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:22 PM (EDT):

DEIRDRE: THIS IS YOUR CONSCIENCE SPEAKING. RUN, RUN AWAY AS FAST AS YOU CAN. THIS CONVERSATION IS NOT GOING TO START MAKING SENSE ANY TIME SOON.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:22 PM (EDT):

@Christina. St Paul was criticizing women for dressing to the nines and being fancy like Roman pagan women.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:21 PM (EDT):

I’m not the same Christina who’s already posted, but I think there is definitely something to be said for teaching boys to respect girls, especially in relationships. It’s funny to me that a boy can go through his whole life respecting girls with whom he has a platonic relationship, but the minute he’s in a romantic relationship, that respect disappears. I knew several boys who were raised in good, Catholic homes, and treated their female friends and other girls with a great deal of respect, but privately treated their girlfriends as vehicles for sexual gratification. I think boys should be taught (around the time they start dating) that the respect and protection due to all women does not stop just because you say “Will you go out with me?”

Posted by Dan on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:21 PM (EDT):

Simcha, thanks for vouching for us men (“whiplash” syndrome) and the tremendous battle we face nowadays, and balancing that with our responsibility to be righteous men—hopefully just as programmed as our desire for women.

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:20 PM (EDT):

No Deirdre - St. Paul is saying to cover your hair - if you can’t handle getting it cut off. Mother Theresa, by the way, used to personally cut off all the hair of new sisters as an obedience to this headship tradition - this is not done with men religous.

Posted by crazylikeknoxes on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:18 PM (EDT):

Blessed Jesus of Nazareth said that men who lusted in their hearts committed the mortal sin of adultery. I doubt if very many breathing men will be saved (unless they have feminine virtue of rolling their eyes out of their heads).

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:16 PM (EDT):

@Deirdre. To clarify: Mortal sin excludes grace. So if a specific act, such as the dress of even the more modest [less immodest]western women, is mortally sinful, no other good traits in the woman will save her because she has to repent of the specific act. Immodest dress is mortally sinful in women because it cruelly disrespects men who want to to be pure visually and also Sacred Scientific tradition and right reason tell us modesty of dress is more incumbent on women because of the difference I outlined above.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:14 PM (EDT):

Interesting, Logical—I was reading the verses surrounding the one you cherrypicked and it said “if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.” So, I guess that ends the hair covering argument! Because it’s no longer considered disgraceful for a woman to cut her hair! ;)

Also, in general, the ‘headship’ think does NOT mean you have authority over random women you meet on line.

(I can see the conversation now.)
Dh: What the heck are you doing?
me: Oh, I’m cutting up all my immodest khaki pants and sewing them into long skirts because a guy on the internet told me he was the boss of me because he was a man.
Dh: (backing away slowly)....uh…yeah…. um…. you keep doing that, honey….. I’m going to go make a couple of phone calls…. and…um…. I think I’ll drop the kids off at a friend’s house….. they need… a playdate! Yeah, that’s it!

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:13 PM (EDT):

In Paul’s letter to the Romans he expressly criticizes the “look the part and you’ll be saved” mindset. Our salvation is not based on whether or not the privates of our (husband|father|brother) look the part, nor is it based on whether we look the part. Our salvation is based on our relationship with God. If that relationship is present and growing He will guide us. We must be obedient to His Church and His Church remains silent on specifics.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:08 PM (EDT):

Listen, friend, my husband is my head. You, on the other hand, are just some guy who knows how to type.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:07 PM (EDT):

There’s an odd Calvinist streak to a lot of people who are heavily invested in dictating what a virtuous woman should wear.

You’re predestined to heaven or hell by virtue of modesty alone, and your choice (long skirts versus khaki pants) is proof of where you’re going.

UGH. If I wear skirts more volumnous than Marys, and a long veil, but do not have love I am only three sheets to the wind, sailing in the wrong direction….....

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:06 PM (EDT):

Rolling eyes? Pride pricked. The Bible: “The Head of Christ is God, The Head of Man is Christ, the head of woman is man.”

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:04 PM (EDT):

Okay, I guess I’ll send you a postcard from hell when I get there, then. Thanks for the heads-up!

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:04 PM (EDT):

Women have no clue whatsoever about the visual nature of mens sexual make up. The man’s drive is much stronger, more quickly aroused and nearly completely visual. Women should indeed dress modestly as they are their brothers’ keeper. I think this is why Holy Mary appeared in Lourdes and Fatima just before the 20th century to act as a model. Blessed Jacinta of Fatima said just before she died in Lisbon: “Woe to women wanting in modesty.”

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:02 PM (EDT):

Are you saying that I lied about Venerable Jacinta words? Up to the beginning of the 20th century all women dressed with the level of modesty that is exhibited by Holy Mary as we see in statues of Our lady of lourdes and our Lady of Fatima. Fatima is a Muslim name as well suggesting what God wants from women. so yes, very few western women will be saved.

Posted by Howard on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 12:01 PM (EDT):

Hey, if I’d known you didn’t want benign and reasonable, I’d have bitten on the comment beneath your previous post disparaging the name “Crimson Tide”. :-)

Posted by crazylikeknoxes on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:56 AM (EDT):

“I just rolled them so hard they fell out.” Not possible. My teenage daughter still has hers.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:50 AM (EDT):

Has anyone seen my eyeballs? I just rolled them so hard they fell out.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:50 AM (EDT):

I doubt if very many western women will be saved

.

And that’s why, as these women’s brother, you pray for them regularly and treat them with charity at all times, right?

Posted by logicalcalculus on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:47 AM (EDT):

Women have no clue whatsoever about the visual nature of mens sexual make up. The man’s drive is much stronger, more quickly aroused and nearly completely visual. Women should indeed dress modestly as they are their brothers’ keeper. I think this is why Holy Mary appeared in Lourdes and Fatima just before the 20th century to act as a model. I doubt if very many western women will be saved because the Blessed Jacinta of Fatima said just before she died in Lisbon: “Woe to women wanting in modesty.”

Posted by Diane on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:46 AM (EDT):

The best advice I have ever heard regarding modesty for both men and women is that woman must first recognize her own dignity in her femininity if men are going to recognize her dignity and therefore she should dress in a way that appropriately reveals she is a woman but also reveals she is a lady.

Posted by Roscoe on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:18 AM (EDT):

I know a great and beautiful woman, devoted to the Church, who has absolutely no clue about this. It’s common sense. The poor woman craves male attention and then coyly chides them for making advances. ‘Modesty is Christian behaviour’ is a statement I won’t forget. I wonder how a woman can be so adamant about sacraments, then leave church and draw lust from men. Beauty doesn’t need crass ‘sexiness’.

Posted by Simple Man on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:05 AM (EDT):

I am a married guy. The other day I was at the pool with my one-year old son. In strode a “very healthy” seeming young woman in a white bikini. As soon as I saw her, I looked away, but, not my son! He turned his entire BODY around to STARE at her rear-end! I couldn’t believe it. Every time I turned him around the other way, he would struggle back to stare at this woman’s bottom. He was riveted. I was caught between trying not to laugh and being appalled. What is he going to be like once he hits puberty?! (Possibly like I was. Shudder.)

Certainly - it is true. We men ARE programmed this way. Some more than others of course, but a woman should assume that a man’s interest in the female physical form is close to his interest in breathing air. It is only by NOT getting a visual sense of a woman’s body that most men are able to start to appreciate a woman for who she is as a person rather than an object.

The worst thing for me is to see young women dressed in tight pants (etc.) in CHURCH. Recently I was “stuck” behind some girl wearing some sort of yoga pants in church. It was awful. I had to have my eyes closed almost the entire time and it was a terrible distraction. Frankly it is a pretty thoughtless thing to do. It makes me wonder if (especially young women and their parents) have ANY clue about men whatsoever - or if they just don’t care.

Trying to be chaste becomes like torture in many circumstances. Now you can’t even go the grocery store without seeing the most unbelievable outfits! And, yes, then all the man sees are body parts.

If you are showing off your body, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for many men to see YOU. If you are young girl and interested in a boy, he will go through extreme lengths to PRETEND, and do whatever it takes, to convince you that he is interested in YOU for who you are. Some men will even spend YEARS doing this. But if he has been looking at your body the whole time, you have a rough foundation for starting off.

Also men have great imaginations in this department. So - cover it up - he can still guess what is underneath! (This does NOT mean you wear a burka! There are an infinite number of ways to wear clothing that is pretty but not tightly form fitting, etc.)

For those who want their wives to dress a little sexier: huh? I hope they don’t mean in public. The last thing I want if for some OTHER guy to be looking at my wife that way. Why would I want my wife to be the cause of some other man’s sin? No thank you.

Posted by filiusdextris on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 11:02 AM (EDT):

Hey mothers - tactical side warning for your girls - besides dressing modestly, please teach them how not to lean over when avoidable, (for example, to pick something off the floor, instead keep the spine vertical and bend at the knees and not at the hip if possible). Modest necklines (e.g., t-shirts) when standing can become immodest “in a flash”.

I once read a book of fictional letters composed by Pope John Paul I (yes, not “II”), written a couple of years before he ascended to the papacy. He had some delightful comments on modesty in a letter written to Marie Antoinette’s mother, an empress. It struck a nice even tone that recognized worsening trends, but also benignly accepting and even encouraging some husband-hunting techniques for those for whom it would be applicable. If you can find it, it’s a good read.

Posted by crazylikeknoxes on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:51 AM (EDT):

“There will always be some man somewhere who manages to lust, no matter what you’re wearing ***.” There’s an understatement. In the depraved heart of man, even modesty will be a turn on. See Ovid, Amores 2.4.

For I confesse, if that might merite favour,
Heere I display my lewd and loose behaviour.
I loathe, yet after that I loathe, I runne:
Oh how the burthen irkes, that we should shun.
I cannot rule my selfe, but where love please
Am driven like a ship upon rough seas,
No one face likes me best, all faces moove,
A hundred reasons makes me ever love.
If any e[y]e mee with a modest looke,
I burne, and by that blushfiill glance am tooke:
And she thats coy I like for being no clowne,
Me thinkes she should be nimble when shees downe.

Posted by Margaret H on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:43 AM (EDT):

SUCH a great article Simcha. i think this is a great summary of what is expected from men and women and what is unreasonable to expect from men and women!

I particularly love this: “It’s true that women have a responsibility to dress decently so as not to deliberately provoke lust in men. But they do not have a responsibility to make it impossible for men to lust after them.” YES!

PS I spent all morning yesterday at my job cleaning out file cabinets on the ground. I was squatting, bending down, sitting cross legged and back up again. And all I have to say is…..
....pants!

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:39 AM (EDT):

On another blog post (maybe this blog…I don’t remember), someone mentioned that the best way to teach boys to be “gentle” with their sisters was to teach them to “protect” their sisters. Perhaps that can be extended…teach boys to protect the women in their lives and they will treat them with respect as well?

Posted by Meg on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:36 AM (EDT):

“Whenever I heard this argument, I think of a busty woman wearing a skin-tight T-shirt with a big arrow and “MY EYES ARE UP HERE” emblazoned across her chest.” - Love this. I always thought those shirts were completely obnoxious and hypocritical.

Posted by priest's wife on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:27 AM (EDT):

regarding teaching boys to not gawk at any girl, etc: yes, please. Don’t gawk- respect her as a fellow child of God. That’s all for now. There is something creepy about a kid who can analyze why a girl or woman is immodest (neckline a bit too low, skirt should be at least at the middle of the knee)

yet another thing to balance- cultivating modesty in clothing while still preserving the innocence of our kids by not making them obsessed with cleavage.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 10:03 AM (EDT):

@Christina: my husband feels the same way! It’s about more than “easy access”—he just thinks they’re sexier, whereas pants don’t mean much to him. This was my first clue that the “pants are from the debbil” argument was bogus.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 9:58 AM (EDT):

Perhaps another example of lust no matter what the woman is wearing, several eons ago I had a guy tell me that skirts were sexier because they offered easier access. Funny thing was, at that time I was not the most modest creature and the shorts I wore were a LOT “worse” than the skirts…yet this guy still would have preferred me wearing the skirts.

To this day I still feel a little uncomfortable in a skirt and have to wear shorts of some kind underneath.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 9:43 AM (EDT):

@Cari: You’re right about that - I should have used another example. Just trying to make the point that more clothing does not automatically equal more respect for women.

@Kelly, I know—a lot of single men talk about looking for the perfectly modest wife of their dreams, but a lot of married men seem to wish their wives would show a little more skin. I think a good compromise is to dress attractively but modestly during the day, keeping in mind that when you’re in public, OTHER women’s husbands can see you, too—and then, when you expect to be alone with your husband, certain inequities can be rectified. (That was me quoting Norman Osborn in reference to lingerie. You may now proceed with your morning.)

Posted by Kelly on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 9:35 AM (EDT):

One thing that goes through my mind during these sorts of discussions is that, if you are a married woman, don’t we owe a little something to our husbands in terms of dressing to please him? I am NOT talking about looking cheap or inappropriate here, just thinking that when he married me, I did not resemble a nun, Amish or Mennonite, or even a newfangled Sister in a navy blue Hilary suit. (I am also not talking about dressing for mass.)

Posted by Cari on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 9:32 AM (EDT):

One slight comment about an otherwise excellent article- rape isn’t about lust, it’s about power.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Thursday, Jun 30, 2011 9:19 AM (EDT):

John Zmirak had a goof article on the “man side” of this at InsideCatholic (Now Crisis again) a few years back: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/whats-your-lust-index

He had some good advice for men on the line between lust and appreciating natural beauty.

I’ve noticed that a lot of married Catholic men also deal with being surrounded by unmarried attractive women like this:
“Gosh! She’s cute and kind! I should try to fix her up with my brother/friend/barber…”

So not “That harlot, how dare she tempt me with her loose hair and trim figure!” but “She’s a nice attractive girl and deserves an nice single guy.”

Or maybe it’s just that most of the Catholic guys I know are inordinately fond of match making…...

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.